In Defence of Maoism

[btpound]

Okay. So I had a discussion with a friend of mine in the Socialist Alternative in America tonight. I mentioned to him that I was leaning toward Maoism, and it began a heated debate. His arguments were as follows:

* Mao was born in a middle class, went to nice schools, and was never part of the working class.

* Maoism mean socialism in one county which is impossible.

* That China had no democracy under Mao.

* That the CCP didn't set up workers councils, but rather outposts in order to dictate to the masses what they will do.

* That the working class had no part in the revolutionary process in China, and when they wanted to launch a general strike in support of Mao, Mao said if they struck he would kill them.

* That Mao was a butcher.

I did my best to refute these arguments to the best of my ability, but as I said, I am leaning toward Maoism, but don't know enough to take a firm stand against these claims. He has already told me that he is going to prepare notes for our next discussion. Please help me out, and please cite sources. Thanks.

[red cat]

Is there any point to such debates?

Don't think that if you are able to provide some concrete logic or facts in favour of Mao's China, your friend will change his line and embrace Maoism. Rather his goal is more likely to be to defend his current line at any cost, even by slandering the ongoing revolutions.

It is much more useful to actually learn about Maoism and the ongoing revolutions. Many self-proclaimed communists will attempt to lure you into debates and refer to tonnes of literature that you've never heard of and will never find time to read. Just don't fall for all that scholarly bullshit. We don't care about what revisionist sources say. We have our parties which actually make revolution and have historically interacted with the CPC and, so we hold that the facts that they provide are generally correct. And these facts might not come in the form of seemingly sophisticated research work that reactionaries so carefully concoct. Mere words passing on from one revolutionary to another are worth much more than that.

Always remember, that when you participate in revolutionary activities, workers or peasants won't ask you whether Stalin purge old Bolsheviks or Mao starved millions; they will only note to what extent you are willing to fight for them.

If you want to discuss topics in Maoism, then the MLM group is the best place to do it to prevent slandering and trolling.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTPound, it all depends on whether you believe in socialism from above (Maoism, Stalinism, putchism, and various forms of bourgeois social democracy), or socialism from below (Leninism, Trotskyism and various forms of anarchism and/or anarcho-syndicalism).

Of course, to lay my cards on the table, the former cannot in fact deliver socialism, but instead creates some form of bonapartism, state capitalism or bourgeois 'democracy', which will simply require another round of class struggle to remove.

More on this here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/index.htm

[btpound]

I believe in socialism from below, but I firstly believe in socialism. Maoism is the to me the best way in which power may be seized. Trotskyism and Anarchism have never brought revolution, and likely never will. I do not believe in a autocratic bureaucracy and if the revolution went that way in my country I would give my life in protest of it. I am not a Maoist because I glorify Mao, but because I glorify his methods. The reason I want replies to this, is because the person I debate is a very good friend of mine I have known sice I was a child. But also because I cant respond to the questions. It is not so much for his benefit, but for mine.

[bailey_187]

* Mao was born in a middle class, went to nice schools, and was never part of the working class. .

So was Marx, Lenin and Trotsky. Mao spent 20 years as a guerilla fighter living in the mountains of China so he hardly had a comfortable life. Is the SA Trotskyist? My which case, that really isnt a point he should be making, Trotsky lived a much more bourgeois life than Mao - not that i am even condemning Trotsky for this.



* Maoism mean socialism in one county which is impossible. .

This is a really big debate. There are many more threads discussing this. SIOC is not "fuck the world lets just built socialism here" its "lets built socialism were we can"



* That China had no democracy under Mao. .

* That the CCP didn't set up workers councils, but rather outposts in order to dictate to the masses what they will do.


Well there was no multi-party "democracy" if that what he means but so what.
As Dong Ping Han notes in The Unknown Cultural Revolution page 121:
"It became normal practice during the cultural revolution decade to hold a mass meeting in early spring to discuss the production goals and plans of the year"
Also in the Cultural Revolution "Production team leaders...were now elected instead of being appointed from above.
Also in the Cultural Revolution, one man managment in factories was abolished and "three in one" managment introduced where management would be done by rank and file workers, CP members and technicians.
Also, in the Cultural Revolution, everyone had access to paper and paint to put up "big character posters" criticising party leaders, as well as access to printing presses - allowing there to be 100s of different newspapers circulating in Beijing alone IIRC

Also, a lot of economic planning became decentralised.



* That the working class had no part in the revolutionary process in China, and when they wanted to launch a general strike in support of Mao, Mao said if they struck he would kill them.

I dont know much about this so i wont try
The Trots scream "class collaboration", the Maoists "we need to fight Imperialism first with the help of the progressive bourgeoisie"
For the Trots its like a technicality that because the Peasents seized power rather than an Urban insurrection, its not Socialism - its like you win a competition but are stripped of your win after the judges find out you didnt fill in your application to enter the competition correctly



* That Mao was a butcher.

So he was working class?



I suggest checking out the China Study Group online for some good articles about Mao.

Anyway, im sure the actual Maoists will provide you with better answers than me (im not a Maoist)

[bailey_187]

Anyway, my criticism of Maoism, in case any Maoists want to defend it, is this:
We understand that the workers can not just lay hands at the state machinary and use it for their own interests, but must smash the bourgeois state and its apparatus and rebuilt Proletarian apparatus and state.
So how can the Revisionists like Krushchev simply lay hands on the Proletarian state in 1956 and it turns State-Capitalist? Thats reverse reformism. Although the USSR was revisionist, the proletarian state was never dismantled was it? Atleast not until the late 80's/91
So IMO Maoists are wrong about the nature of the post-Stalin USSR

[red cat]

Anyway, my criticism of Maoism, in case any Maoists want to defend it, is this:
We understand that the workers can not just lay hands at the state machinary and use it for their own interests, but must smash the bourgeois state and its apparatus and rebuilt Proletarian apparatus and state.
So how can the Revisionists like Krushchev simply lay hands on the Proletarian state in 1956 and it turns State-Capitalist? Thats reverse reformism. Although the USSR was revisionist, the proletarian state was never dismantled was it? Atleast not until the late 80's/91
So IMO Maoists are wrong about the nature of the post-Stalin USSR
It didn't happen suddenly in 1956. The revisionist encirclement of Stalin had begun a long time ago, and had particularly gained pace after WW2, due to the large space left by the martyrdom of countless communists. Add to this Stalin's failure to apply the mass-line correctly, so that the state machinery could be used against the proletariat immediately after revisionists had captured it. The first steps were as usual, creating a bureaucracy, and cutting down the size of the army, so as to destroy the mass-nature of the organs of state-power. But still, so great was the impact of Stalin-led socialism on the USSR, they actually needed about forty years to break it.

[BobKKKindle$]

Also in the Cultural Revolution, one man managment in factories was abolished and "three in one" managment introduced where management would be done by rank and file workers, CP members and technicians.Dongping Han is a polemicist first and foremost which is why he doesn't tell us anything about why and how the three-in-one combination came into being in early 1967. The reason they were introduced is that late 1966 and January of 1967 witnessed a movement that threatened the core interests of the bureaucracy in the form of the so-called "wind of economism", which involved workers putting pressure on their cadres to grant them material concessions and improve their working conditions. In Shanghai and elsewhere, this movement was focused around those workers whose legal status or lack thereof had prevented them from enjoying the same benefits as workers who had permanent status - temporary and contract workers were especially important, as they did not receive lifetime securities, pensions, subsidies, disability coverage, or health insurance for their dependents. They were also paid by the day or on a piecework basis instead of by the month, and were paid lower wages then permanent workers despite often being assigned to the most strenuous forms of labour and facing the threat of being fired at short notice, to the extent that whereas the lowest monthly wage for a permanent worker in Shanghai at this time was 40 yuan, many contract and temporary workers were paid less than 30 yuan, whilst also being barred from membership of trade unions and the CPC. The movement developed to the point where it encompassed the whole of the working class, and did enable workers to extract important concessions from the state, and to reap the benefits of those concessions in the form of increased consumption - such that, from January 1st to the 8th of the same month, Shanghai's largest department store experienced a growth in sales of 36.3% over the same period of the previous year, with purchases of bicycles and watches being particularly prominent. Workers also take advantage of the movement and the collapse of party leadership to seize surplus housing, which was carried out under the pretext of expelling “capitalist roaders”, “four pests”, and “reactionary authorities”, which resulted in all surplus housing that had been awaiting allocation in the whole of Shanghai being seized within the space of five days, from December 30th to January 3rd.

This is important because it indicates the extent to which consumption had been suppressed since 1949 to maxmise accumulation, as well as the divisions that the PRC created within the working class in order to intensify exploitation and turn workers against each other. The response of the leadership also says a great deal about the nature of Chinese society at this point in time - the national leadership did not support the workers, and produced an "Urgent Notice”, which was published throughout the country as part of the People's Daily on the 12th and decreed that those who had sabotaged production would be arrested by the Public Security Bureau, “in accordance with the law”, that the participants were also guilty of having opposed Mao, that workers would no longer be allowed to share revolutionary experiences, that they would be made to repay the expense money they had used to travel to other work units and cities, that workers and cadres both had a duty to return to their original units and work for eight hours each day, that wages would be frozen, and that enterprise funds would no longer be used to make unauthorized payments to workers making “economistic” demands, which were attributed to the work of “revisionists”. The national leadership then proceeded to shut down the Shanghai People's Commune in February, and imposed the three-in-one combination in Shanghai and eventually throughout the whole of China as a means of getting production going again and putting the working class back in its place. It was also from February 1967 onwards that the PLA began to have an increasingly important role in Chinese politics, as at the county and provincial level revolutionary committees were almost all led by members of the PLA, and members of the PLA were also sent into schools and factories in order to restore order, culminating in the defeat of the left in late 1967. This process of restoring order had the support of Mao and the rest of the national leadership, and took the form of radical organizations being banned, their members being made to register with the municipal Public Security Bureau, being frequently subject to the same kind of penalties that had been used against those who had gone too far during previous campaigns, such as firing, transferring, the docking of pay, and struggle sessions.

This is not the sign of a polity based on mass democracy and the rule of the working class, it is a sign of a class society in which the a section of the ruling class called on the working population to carry out its factional goals but was then made to resort to force when it found that workers were going beyond the goals they had been assigned and seeking to change the balance of political power.

The source for all the above, by the way, is Perry, Li, Proletarian Power: Shanghai in the Cultural Revolution (1997) although most of the same broad arguments can be found in Liu (1987) and Hong Yung Lee (1978)


Also, in the Cultural Revolution, everyone had access to paper and paint to put up "big character posters" criticising party leaders,Again, this is far too simplistic. Not only were there multiple factions and social forces at work during all phases of the Cultural Revolution, but also the party leadership was quick to clamp down on any forms of criticism that did not serve their factional interests. For example, from April onwards there were wall posters in Beijing attacking Zhou Enlai as leader of red capitalist class, due his role in instigating the PLA's intervention, and restoring cadres, and there were also physical attacks on state offices and ministries, particularly the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where radical Red Guards were said to have seized and destroyed secret documents, and criticized Chen Yi due to his prominent role in the PLA. These acts of rebellion led to those who had been involved being persecuted during the campaign against "May 16 Elements" in 1968, and their leaders comprise some of the only individuals who were not rehabilitated after the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1976, so I don't think you can say that everyone was allowed to criticize without having to worry about the response of the state.

The leadership's uniform reaction to the publication of 'Whither China', published by the radical organization Sheng-wu-lien, also indicates how anxious the ruling class was to re-establish control of the situation and to bring mass participation to an end. The organization was publicly denounced by Zhou Enlai, Jiang Qing, Chen Boda, and Kang Sheng on January 26th of 1968, at a rally of 100,000 people in Changsha, as a "counter-revolutionary organization", and on the same day as the rally, Hunan Daily published an editorial entitled 'Thoroughly Smash Sheng-wu-lien, a Counter-Revolutionary Big Hotch-Potch'. On February 8th, Zhou Enlai personally instructed the Southern Daily to reproduce the editorial for mass consumption, and Kang Sheng had also asserted in a speech two days before the mass rally that the organization had received some of Trotsky's works and developed its analysis on the basis of his ideas. The reason this organization attracted such intense persecution by the state was that its basic thesis was that China was a class society in which the cadres and government officials constituted a red capitalist class whose privileges depended on the exploitation of the proletariat and peasantry, and who had imposed revolutionary committees (that is, the three-in-one combination) in order to prevent the working class from realizing the goal of the People's Commune of China. The authors argued that this goal could only be obtained through the destruction of the bureaucracy, and would, in the style of the Paris Commune, involve officials being democratically elected and subject to recall at all times.

If the OP is interested in Chinese history, I would recommend they read the document 'Whither China?', as it's very interesting, and represents the forces that Mao was desperate to crush.


For the Trots its like a technicality that because the Peasents seized power rather than an Urban insurrection, its not SocialismIt's more the idea that "the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself".

For the OP, the best Marxist analysis of Chinese history available on the net is The Mandate of Heaven by Nigel Harris (http://www.marxists.de/china/harris/index.htm).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTPound


I believe in socialism from below, but I firstly believe in socialism.

Well, as I said, socialism cannot come from above.


Maoism is the to me the best way in which power may be seized.

By a band on non-workers, sure.


Trotskyism and Anarchism have never brought revolution, and likely never will.

But socialism from below is about workers, not Trotskyists or anarchists, creating a new society.


I am not a Maoist because I glorify Mao, but because I glorify his methods.

Then you believe in socialism from above, and thus in no socialism at all.


The reason I want replies to this, is because the person I debate is a very good friend of mine I have known sice I was a child. But also because I cant respond to the questions. It is not so much for his benefit, but for mine.

Good luck getting an honest reply from the Maoists.

[scarletghoul]

Rosa- he wanted the Maoists' views on these things, not yours.
I have to agree with what red cat said, its good to post in the MLM group if you want Maoist opinions free from inteferance.

I'll reply to the points in the OP later.

[BobKKKindle$]

I'll reply to the points in the OP later.

Why don't you respond to my points, too? I'll feel left out otherwise.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


Rosa- he wanted the Maoists' views on these things, not yours.

He nowhere says this; anyway, as you note, the place to get partisan answers is in the ML group. If such questions are posted in this open forum, then anyone can chip in.

[bailey_187]

Thanks Bob, ill read these big paragraphs later but the bits you quoted from me i did not get from Han but from the RCP-USA - ill read into it more

p.s. would you mind replying to my History threads if you have anything to say about it please?

[Hit The North]

Btpound, why are you leaning towards Maoism anyway? What is it about his method which you think is applicable to the situation in the United States? The two nations - one an economically backward society with a a massive peasantry; the other, the most advanced capitalist economy where the majority are workers and live in cities - are very different.

[communick]

Trotskyism and Anarchism have never brought revolution, and likely never will.

Well, it wasn't called Trotskyism at the time but the Bolshevik seizure of power is the model. Trotsky was, after all, running the Military Revolutionary Committee.

It sounds like your friend from Socialist Alternative might have focused too much on the negative aspects of Mao,Maoism, and the Chinese revolution which there are plenty of, without mentioning that the CWI position is that the Chinese revolution was the 2nd greatest revolution in the world.

I'm a member of Socialist Alternative and a former Maoist.

[BobKKKindle$]

the Chinese revolution was the 2nd greatest revolution in the worldThere's no reason to rehearse all the arguments about the inadequacy of orthodox Trotskyism here, but the view that capitalism can be abolished through a force other than the working class is especially problematic in the case of China because not even Mao himself believed that the events of 1949 signified the abolition of private property - instead he argued that China would carry out a New Democratic revolution, whereby, to quote the document 'On New Democracy', capital would not be permitted to “dominate the livelihood of the people”, although the national bourgeoisie would be allowed to keep their property, and that whilst the government would “confiscate the land of the landlords” and distribute it to those with “little or no land”, it would still permit a “rich peasant economy”. This is an accurate description of what happened in China, in that, prior to the Three- and Five-anti campaigns of 1951 and 1952, there was still a significant private sector, accounting for up to half of the economy, and the CPC's desire to preserve the private sector was such that the number of businessmen in eight major cities had increased by 27% by the end of 1951, compared to 1949, and the average rate of profit was a remarkable 29% in 1951 and 31% in 1953. In this context, by arguing that capitalism was abolished in 1949, orthodox Trotskyists are arguing that the CPC had an under-estimation of the scale of whatever social transformations took place when Mao came to power, which is problematic, to say the least.

[blake 3:17]

This all treating the ideas in the ethersphere.

To respond to the OP -- What's drawing you to Maoism? Mao's writing and thought? The Chinese revolution? Maoists around you doing political work?

[btpound]

Btpound, why are you leaning towards Maoism anyway? What is it about his method which you think is applicable to the situation in the United States? The two nations - one an economically backward society with a a massive peasantry; the other, the most advanced capitalist economy where the majority are workers and live in cities - are very different.

The things that I like about Maoism are:

a) I like that his political theory was built on practice, developed out of theory.

b) I like that he approaches Marxist-Leninism in the scientific spirit which is inseparable from Marxism.

c) I have been listening to lectures from Bob Avakian, chairman of the RCP-USA. The things he says I really agree with, and I feel I have learned a lot from them.

d) I do feel that it is necessary to build socialism in one country if you are in that situation of either socialism or barbarism.

I regret to inform you however that I think I have made the decision to NOT follow Maoism. I like some of the things that Mao said, I think that a full study of Marxism cannot leave Mao out, but his is not a model that should be exemplified as, "Here is what we need to do". The components that lead to this decision are:

a) Mao was a Stalinist, and I am not. The more and more I look at his writing and actions as commissar of Russia, the more I think he had no talent for anything but as a bureaucrat. I don't think he was true to Leninism, and it was only useful to him as a means of putting forward his own bureaucratic program. It doesn't even seem like he really even understands it fully, I could be wrong though. Maybe he understands, but just doesn't care.

b) Mao had the same problems as leader of china. When enacting the "Great Leap Forward", he didn't take a vote. He didn't run the idea past the working class. He just did it. He developed the program himself and with his own ruling cadre, and enacted it. That is not the way socialism is done.

c) Maoism is necesarily top down.

d) Mao has several crucial flaws in his thinking. Mainly listening to Stalin.

Thank you to all who contributed to this thread, and I appreciate all your input. Yes, even the non-Maoists.

[red cat]

Do you know about the CPC's disagreements with the CPSU, Mao's evaluation of Stalin, and the basics of Maoist mass-line?

[btpound]

no I don't. Why don't you PM me with more info.

[Bloody Kalashnikov]

i was not aware maoism needed defending, unless its a liberal knob you are dealing with, in wich case, shout insults then run off, petulance is a virtue my friend:D

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I needed to come back to this:


or socialism from below (Leninism, Trotskyism and various forms of anarchism and/or anarcho-syndicalism).

Are you joking about that? I think the fact that most Maoist and Stalinists will also identify as Leninists tells you enough about that ideology.

[BobKKKindle$]

Are you joking about that? I think the fact that most Maoist and Stalinists will also identify as Leninists tells you enough about that ideology.

I'm pretty sure that most national anarchists and anarcho-capitalists identify as anarchists as well. Do you think their ideas are consistent with anarchist principles?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stranger than:


Are you joking about that?

No.


I think the fact that most Maoist and Stalinists will also identify as Leninists tells you enough about that ideology.

What they say and what they do are two different things -- and what they ended up doing made them enthusiastic adherents of 'socialism from above'.

[ls]

I needed to come back to this:



Are you joking about that? I think the fact that most Maoist and Stalinists will also identify as Leninists tells you enough about that ideology.

And you should know that Leninism is just about as broad a term as Anarchism, despite a lot of Anarchist theory attempting to make people think otherwise. There are MLs and Trots that are just as or more revolutionary than Anarchists in the end of the day.

[Paul Cockshott]

BTPound, it all depends on whether you believe in socialism from above (Maoism, Stalinism, putchism, and various forms of bourgeois social democracy), or socialism from below (Leninism, Trotskyism and various forms of anarchism and/or anarcho-syndicalism).


This seems an extraordinary position. To identify the tradition of the Bolsheviks in power with socialism from below is to confuse their intentions prior to coming to power with what they did once in power.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Paul:


This seems an extraordinary position. To identify the tradition of the Bolsheviks in power with socialism from below is to confuse their intentions prior to coming to power with what they did once in power.

How does what I have said imply this?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

What they say and what they do are two different things -- and what they ended up doing made them enthusiastic adherents of 'socialism from above'.

Yes but what I meant is what the Bolsheviks ended up doing also makes them adherents of Socialism from above hence Leninism should be in that category.

[btpound]

Do you know about the CPC's disagreements with the CPSU, Mao's evaluation of Stalin, and the basics of Maoist mass-line?

Actually, i am. But his critique was more, "you don't understand the masses well enough." than "you don't let the masses excise democracy." And I think the mass line is just a theory that permits a top-down mentality. it means, "I know what is best for the masses, and how to excise my political power in their interests" rather then establishing a system where the masses can work it out for themselves.


i was not aware maoism needed defending, unless its a liberal knob you are dealing with, in wich case, shout insults then run off, petulance is a virtue my friend:D

The debate was not like that, as I said he is a comrade, in the CWI. Although he was not able to formulate a very thorough argument, but it was late, so I will let it slide. And as I stated before, I posted this more because I had no good answers really for him to his assertions. But as I am slowly realizing there are no good answers at all.

[RHIZOMES]

* Mao was born in a middle class, went to nice schools, and was never part of the working class.

That's quite ironic for a Trotskyist to say if I do say so myself. Or even just a Leninist for that matter. Hell, even just an overall Marxist it's quite an idiotic criticism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stranger:


Yes but what I meant is what the Bolsheviks ended up doing also makes them adherents of Socialism from above hence Leninism should be in that category.

Well, they certainly started off in the 'socialism from below' category, but the virtual annihilation of the working class in the former USSR by WW1 and the civil war, the destruction of much of its productive capacity in that war, and the isolation of the revolution, meant that the Bolshevik party rapidly degenerated, and, under Stalin, slipped into the other category.

[Paul Cockshott]

Paul:



How does what I have said imply this?
You listed one group of tendancies that support revolution from above :(Maoism, Stalinism, putchism, and various forms of bourgeois social democracy)

Then a group which support socialism from below : (Leninism, Trotskyism and various forms of anarchism and/or anarcho-syndicalism).

But if you look at the first two in your second list, these are the people who brought us the Cheka, show trials of political opponents, mass executions of political opponents, one man management in industry, the one party state, the restoration of the old distinction between officers and men in the army ...

One could quite uncontroversially put the anarchists on one side as supporters of socialism below as opposed to the others.

One could slightly more controvesially put Mao as a supporter of socialism from below : encouragement of mass movements that criticised the CP leadership, emphasis on learning from the masses and the mass line.

But it is hard to see the basis for your distinction.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Paul:


But if you look at the first two in your second list, these are the people who brought us the Cheka, show trials of political opponents, mass executions of political opponents, one man management in industry, the one party state, the restoration of the old distinction between officers and men in the army ...

And if you have a look at my other answers on this topic you will see that attribute these to the degeneration of the Bolshevik Party after 1918.


One could quite uncontroversially put the anarchists on one side as supporters of socialism below as opposed to the others.

One could slightly more controvesially put Mao as a supporter of socialism from below : encouragement of mass movements that criticised the CP leadership, emphasis on learning from the masses and the mass line.

But it is hard to see the basis for your distinction.

1) You should perhaps read Draper's article.

2) As I have shown in earlier threads, the so-called 'mass line' was not 'from the people to the people', but 'from the party elite to the people' -- in other words it is more properly to be called the 'mass lie':

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mass-line-vs-t87244/index.html

and subsequent pages.

[Die Neue Zeit]

One could slightly more controvesially put Mao as a supporter of socialism from below : encouragement of mass movements that criticised the CP leadership, emphasis on learning from the masses and the mass line.

But it is hard to see the basis for your distinction.

Isn't the "mass line" also, in your words, "the worst sort of reformism"?

Most of the demands resulting from the "mass line" do not meet the Kautsky criterion (keeping the basic principles of class-strugglism, social labour, transnational emancipation, etc. in full view), the Hahnel criterion (facilitating more progressive changes, i.e. reform-enabling), and may not be even reforms at all ("daily issues" or "bread and butter issues" /= reform issues).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And it's not even the 'mass line', since it's 'from the party to the masses'.

At best it's the 'minority line' -- or even 'the mass lie'.

[Paul Cockshott]

Isn't the "mass line" also, in your words, "the worst sort of reformism"?

Most of the demands resulting from the "mass line" do not meet the Kautsky criterion (keeping the basic principles of class-strugglism, social labour, transnational emancipation, etc. in full view), the Hahnel criterion (facilitating more progressive changes, i.e. reform-enabling), and may not be even reforms at all ("daily issues" or "bread and butter issues" /= reform issues).

I hardly think so. Were the peoples trials of the landlords for their oppression and exploitation that were held in villages in the late 40s early 50s reformist?

The mass line involved discovering what the real conditions of life and real oppressions of the mass of the population were and then agitating among them in order that they, via their own actions and initiative, could transform their social and material conditions of life.

[x359594]

I believe in socialism from below, but I firstly believe in socialism. Maoism is the to me the best way in which power may be seized. Trotskyism and Anarchism have never brought revolution, and likely never will...

True, Trotskyism and anarchism have never brought revolution, but neither has Marxism nor any other iteration of it such as Leninism (and all its varients.) Rather, revolution occurs when the current mode of production has exhausted itself and material circumstances manifest latent contradictions; when the people have had enough and are moved to act in their own class interests.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

x359594:


Trotskyism and anarchism have never brought revolution, but neither has Marxism nor any other iteration of it such as Leninism (and all its varients.) Rather, revolution occurs when the current mode of production has exhausted itself and material circumstances manifest latent contradictions; when the people have had enough and are moved to act in their own class interests.

Except, every single revolution led by Maoists, and/or organised by Stalinists, has either failed or has gone backwards. And this is because they have (1) tried to introduce socialism from above, and (2) in one country.

And, the things you mention aren't contradictions to begin with.

So your theory is musguided, too!

[x359594]

...the things you mention aren't contradictions to begin with...

Did I say they were?

I didn't spell anything out. Rather, I wanted to note that revolutionary parties do not make revolutions, and that revolutions do not occur apart from the material conditions that engender them.


So your theory is musguided, too!

Again, I proposed no theory. I merely sketched a paradigm of revolution abstracted from empirical revolutions. I'm content to leave theorizing to others, but I will say that any theory has to be tested in the crucible of real conditions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

x359534:


Did I say they were?

Looks like you did:


Rather, revolution occurs when the current mode of production has exhausted itself and material circumstances manifest latent contradictions;

You:


Again, I proposed no theory. I merely sketched a paradigm of revolution abstracted from empirical revolutions. I'm content to leave theorizing to others, but I will say that any theory has to be tested in the crucible of real conditions.

And yet, you used the inappropriate term "contradiction".

[Paul Cockshott]

x359594:



Except, every single revolution led by Maoists, and/or organised by Stalinists, has either failed or has gone backwards. And this is because they have (1) tried to introduce socialism from above

Can you explain the concrete policies by which they ( the Maoist faction in the CPC) could have tried to introduce socialism from below and how these policies differed from actual policies, (leaving aside the question as to whether there is an inherent contradiction in the idea of 'them' trying to introduce socialism from below).

[ls]

Can you explain the concrete policies by which they ( the Maoist faction in the CPC) could have tried to introduce socialism from below and how these policies differed from actual policies, (leaving aside the question as to whether there is an inherent contradiction in the idea of 'them' trying to introduce socialism from below).

The self-criticism rhetoric was welcome, however it had 'clauses' whereby you could only criticism them to a certain point and some things could be classified as 'economism' (which they used to simply reject some demands), I don't think this really helps introduce socialism from below by having clauses as to what you can and cannot criticise myself beyond very general things such as no racist criticism etc.

[BobKKKindle$]

Can you explain the concrete policies by which they ( the Maoist faction in the CPC) could have tried to introduce socialism from below and how these policies differed from actual policies, (leaving aside the question as to whether there is an inherent contradiction in the idea of 'them' trying to introduce socialism from below).

It's not about policies, because socialism can only come into being as a result of a revolution led by the working class, which didn't happen in China, because the CPC was not a party of the working class by 1949, and did everything it could to obstruct working class action. If you accept that it's possible for socialism to be implemented after a regime has raised itself to power through the implementation of policies that encourage participation in government and so on then you end up accepting that revolution is not necessary and that socialism can result from coups and other forms of minority action, with the state acting independently of the class forces which have historically formed the basis of coups, and which led the 1949 seizure of power in China - namely, the petty-bourgeoisie. These are perspectives that have nothing to do with Marxism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Paul:


Can you explain the concrete policies by which they ( the Maoist faction in the CPC) could have tried to introduce socialism from below and how these policies differed from actual policies, (leaving aside the question as to whether there is an inherent contradiction in the idea of 'them' trying to introduce socialism from below).

In addition to the things BobK says, although he might disagree with this: drop that crazy theory they lifted from Hegel (upside down or the 'right way up'), since it is clearly the ideology of substitutionist elements in Marxism.

[Patchd]

BTPound, it all depends on whether you believe in socialism from above (Maoism, Stalinism, putchism, and various forms of bourgeois social democracy), or socialism from below (Leninism, Trotskyism and various forms of anarchism and/or anarcho-syndicalism).
Sorry Rosa, but Trotskyism and Leninism cannot be included in the socialism from below category, especially when it's doctrine suggests that the working class is too inexperienced, or unable to organise themselves, democratically, without authority figures who supposedly 'represent' them and lead them to emancipation, as the vanguard of the revolution.

Socialism from below suggests that workers actually build upon the struggle themselves, as opposed to relying on a party bureaucracy that formulates opinions and platforms for them.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Patchd:


Sorry Rosa, but Trotskyism and Leninism cannot be included in the socialism from below category, especially when it's doctrine suggests that the working class is too inexperienced, or unable to organise themselves, democratically, without authority figures who supposedly 'represent' them and lead them to emancipation, as the vanguard of the revolution.

I'm sorry, too, that you find you have to misdescribe both Leninism and Trotskyism to make your point, since both of these traditions put the self-activity of workers first.

Where you get the idea that Leninists and Tritskyists argue that workers need "authority figures who supposedly 'represent' them and lead them to emancipation, as the vanguard of the revolution" from is unclear -- except perhaps you just made it up. A vanguard Leninist party is ideally made up of the most advanced sections of the working class, and the revolution, if and when it comes, is powered by workers' soviets.


Socialism from below suggests that workers actually build upon the struggle themselves, as opposed to relying on a party bureaucracy that formulates opinions and platforms for them.

I agree, that's why I am a Trotskyist and a Leninist.

[Paul Cockshott]

Paul:



In addition to the things BobK says, although he might disagree with this: drop that crazy theory they lifted from Hegel (upside down or the 'right way up'), since it is clearly the ideology of substitutionist elements in Marxism.
I know that you are particularly interested in philosophy, but your remark does not go very far towards the development of specific economic and social policies for the Chinese countryside.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Isn't the "mass line" also, in your words, "the worst sort of reformism"?

Most of the demands resulting from the "mass line" do not meet the Kautsky criterion (keeping the basic principles of class-strugglism, social labour, transnational emancipation, etc. in full view), the Hahnel criterion (facilitating more progressive changes, i.e. reform-enabling), and may not be even reforms at all ("daily issues" or "bread and butter issues" /= reform issues).I hardly think so. Were the peoples trials of the landlords for their oppression and exploitation that were held in villages in the late 40s early 50s reformist?

The mass line involved discovering what the real conditions of life and real oppressions of the mass of the population were and then agitating among them in order that they, via their own actions and initiative, could transform their social and material conditions of life.

Paul, I apologize for not making myself clear here. :( My reference to the Maoist "mass line" is to its application outside of China, especially by Maoist parties in developed countries (Maoism being primarily a development ideology for really backward countries). It's blatantly clear to me that the "mass line" in these circumstances tantamounts to populism and narrow economism.

[Paul Cockshott]

It's not about policies, because socialism can only come into being as a result of a revolution led by the working class, which didn't happen in China, because the CPC was not a party of the working class by 1949, and did everything it did to discourse working class action.

This is a relatively contentious position. You make 2 points


Only a working class revolution can lead to socialism
That the reason why there was not a working class revolution in china was because the CPC was not a working class party.

These two points are actually the substance of the difference between Maoism and Stalin/Trotkyism. Maoism held that it was possible to have a revolution that could lead to socialism in a predominantly peasant country like China, but that it was impossible for military strategic reasons for an urban working class insurrection to be successful there.

What you are basically saying is that you disagree with the whole strategy of the CPC of organising the peasant masses in a revolutionary war. That only makes sense if you have some empirical examples of predominantly rural sem-feudal countries where urban working class insurrections have had long term success.

Could you give us half a dozen or so examples that we could use to compare the success of the Stalin/Trotsky approach with that of Mao/Ho-Chi-Minh in these circumstances?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Paul:


I know that you are particularly interested in philosophy, but your remark does not go very far towards the development of specific economic and social policies for the Chinese countryside.

These, of course, should be determined by Chinese workers, not me, or you, or Mao, or Ho, or...


These two points are actually the substance of the difference between Maoism and Stalin/Trotkyism. Maoism held that it was possible to have a revolution that could lead to socialism in a predominantly peasant country like China, but that it was impossible for military strategic reasons for an urban working class insurrection to be successful there.

And history refuted that idea, too.


What you are basically saying is that you disagree with the whole strategy of the CPC of organising the peasant masses in a revolutionary war. That only makes sense if you have some empirical examples of predominantly rural sem-feudal countries where urban working class insurrections have had long term success.

This just means that socialism from below has never really been tried out. It couldn't in the former USSR after 1921, since the proletariat was all but destroyed, and required a successful revolution in Gemarny and other advanced capitalist countries to rescue it, as Lenin himself argued.

And the class content of a peasant revolution means it cannot create socialism, except it is imposed from above --, which, of course, means it isn't socialism, but some form of state capitalism or bonapartism. And this is why the project failed (in China and Vietnam) to introduce a socialist society.


Could you give us half a dozen or so examples that we could use to compare the success of the Stalin/Trotsky approach with that of Mao/Ho-Chi-Minh in these circumstances?

No one is denying that Mao and Ho led successful nationalist revolutions; what is at issue is whether these were ever socialist in content -- despite what the brochure would have us believe in each case.

And, to equate Trotsky with Stalin's approach is not only inaccurate in the extreme, it is hightly offensive.

[BobKKKindle$]

This is a relatively contentious position.It shouldn't be, the only people who dispute it are Stalinists like yourself.


These two points are actually the substance of the difference between Maoism and Stalin/TrotkyismI disagree, a position of this kind assumes that Stalinism contains ideas that are orientated towards revolution and possibly valid, whereas, as a Marxist, I recognize that the emergence of ideas like socialism in one country was the ideological manifestation of bureaucratic degeneration in the Soviet Union, or, if we are concerned with ideas like New Democracy, the expulsion of the CPC from the cities and the depletion of the party's working-class base. This ideological manifestation was necessary from the viewpoint of the ruling class because it enabled them to present their policies and societies as having something to do with socialism and thereby win over what remained of the working class, whilst exploiting the working population as a means of developing the forces of production (the need to do this arising from military competition with the imperialist countries) and supporting their own privileges.


Maoism held that it was possible to have a revolution that could lead to socialism in a predominantly peasant country like ChinaAs we've discussed previously, Mao's stageist interpretation of history and rejection of world revolution meant that he didn't believe that a socialist agenda was possible in China. He argued that China would first have to go through a period of capitalist development, albeit under the class rule of the proletariat, as part of a bloc of four classes, consisting of the peasantry, the so-called national bourgeoisie, and petty-bourgeoisie - the fact that Mao believed that a bloc involving all of these classes was even possible shows that he and his party were primarily nationalist by the end of the civil war without an elementary commitment to Marxism, because a basic premise of Marxist thought is that the interests of the working class and any section of the bourgeoisie are irreconcilably oppossed, and that the proletariat cannot make itself the ruling class as long as the bourgeoisie retains its private property, due to private property being central to exploitation, and the bourgeoisie's control of the state. This period was known as New Democracy, whose policies were rooted in Sun Yat-sen's Three People's Principles, further indicating the nationalist orientation of the CPC, and, for Mao, only at the end of this period would it be possible for a transition to socialism to take place, without a further violent revolution, due to the proletariat supposedly having been the ruling class even whilst capitalist relations of production remained in place.

Unlike Mao, Trotsky did actually believe that revolution was possible in China (as part of a global revolution) which was why he consistently oppossed the subordination of the CPC to the KMT.


but that it was impossible for military strategic reasons for an urban working class insurrection to be successful there.Which is disproven by the events of the May 30th Movement, the insurrections of 1927, and the factory occupations of 1949.


That only makes sense if you have some empirical examples of predominantly rural sem-feudal countries where urban working class insurrections have had long term success.Firstly, I reject the notion that there is such a thing as a semi-feudal country in the contemporary epoch, and the fact that you believe this was a correct description for China in the 1920s and 30s shows that you don't know what feudalism is, because if you had a proper definition of feudalism (i.e. if you understood feudalism to mean a mode of production centered around the production of use values and peasants being coercivley tied to the land whilst retaining partial control over the means of production, and not just a loose term that can be applied to any society where the rural population makes up a majority) or a decent understanding of what China was like during this period, you would realize that China was a capitalist society, not a feudal society, semi- or otherwise, insofar as the category of feudalism was ever applicable to China. Secondly, I've shown elsewhere (in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/did-china-have-t124075/index.html?p=1620463#post1620463) thread, for example) that China has a long history of urban insurrections, a brief look at the history of the Trotskyist movement in, say, Vietnam, confirms that a country being agrarian does not prevent a socialist revolution from taking place - in fact it is precisely in these countries, as the weak points in the imperialist world-system, that revolution is most likely to break out, as demonstrated by the fact that Russia is thus far the only country in which the working class has succeeded in overthrowing capitalism and establishing itself as the ruling class. The onus is ultimately on you to prove Marx and Lenin wrong by giving us examples of countries where socialism has been established without the active participation of the working class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'd like to hear Paul Cockshott's views on the applicability of "building" and/or "achieving" SIOC in really small countries such as Albania (the crux of Hoxhaism, btw).


It shouldn't be, the only people who dispute it are Stalinists like yourself.

What a blanket statement towards someone who has much more sophisticated views than you think. :rolleyes:


Unlike Mao, Trotsky did actually believe that revolution was possible in China (as part of a global revolution) which was why he consistently oppossed the subordination of the CPC to the KMT.

The same Trotsky who effectively suggested the subordination of communists to social-corporatists ("Social-Democrats") in Saxony as part of a coalition?

[BobKKKindle$]

What a blanket statement towards someone who has much more sophisticated views than you thinkSomeone who thinks the notion that only a working class revolution can lead to socialism is contentious. Now, someone can have sophisticated views without accepting that notion (although I have my doubts about anyone who thinks China was a feudal society in the 1920s) but if you don't accept that notion as the basis of your politics, then you're not a Marxist.


The same Trotsky who effectively suggested the subordination of communists to social-corporatists ("Social-Democrats") in Saxony as part of a coalition?I don't think Trotsky described the SPD as "social-corporatists", in fact that strikes me as one of the many things you've made up, like describing New Labour as social-fascists. In any case, we're not talking about Germany in the 1930s, we're talking about China in the 1920s.

[Paul Cockshott]

It shouldn't be, the only people who dispute it are Stalinists like yourself.
You presumably mean that if I disagree with you on these points I must be a stalinist. But Mao complained that Stalin made similar criticisms of him to those you are making.




As we've discussed previously, Mao's stageist interpretation of history and rejection of world revolution meant that he didn't believe that a socialist agenda was possible in China.


You would have to be more specific about time periods here. The impression I get from reading his writings is that he thought that a socialist agenda was not possible in china in the 1930s and 1940s, but
by the late 50s and certainly by the 60s he thought it was possible.



He argued that China would first have to go through a period of capitalist development, albeit under the class rule of the proletariat, as part of a bloc of four classes, consisting of the peasantry, the so-called national bourgeoisie, and petty-bourgeoisie - the fact that Mao believed that a bloc involving all of these classes was even possible shows that he and his party were primarily nationalist by the end of the civil war without an elementary commitment to Marxism, because a basic premise of Marxist thought is that the interests of the working class and any section of the bourgeoisie are irreconcilably oppossed, and that the proletariat cannot make itself the ruling class as long as the bourgeoisie retains its private property, due to private property being central to exploitation, and the bourgeoisie's control of the state.

Your presentation of his views during the 1930s and 40s is reasonably accurate from my reading. What is contentious is the view that the bourgoisie and proletariat are irreconcilably opposed at all times. He argues in 'On contradiction' that there are a multiplicity of opposed interests in society and that at different times, alliances form between classes that have opposed interests because they are for a time faced with a greater common enemy.

At the time he was writing the greater common enemy of the working class, peasantry and national capitalists in China was the Empire of Japan, which was ravaging the country. He was concerned with the problem of how the communists could enter into a temporary alliance with Guaomindang whilst maintaining their own freedom of action once the Japanese had been defeated. In this respect the Chinese and Vietnamese communists had greater success in keeping their independence of action than the French of Italians did in similar circumstances later.

I think that in all honesty you have to say whether you think the policies of all these CPs or organising partisan resistance to the Japanese and German invaders was mistaken?

Should they have refrained from doing so because internal class conflicts of interest were irreconcilable?


This period was known as New Democracy,... for Mao, only at the end of this period would it be possible for a transition to socialism to take place, without a further violent revolution, due to the proletariat supposedly having been the ruling class even whilst capitalist relations of production remained in place.

That seems a reasonable account of the Mao's position with the proviso that by the late 50s and certainly by the 60s he was arguing that the time had come for the transition to socialism.



[QUOTE]Quote:
but that it was impossible for military strategic reasons for an urban working class insurrection to be successful there.

Which is disproven by the events of the May 30th Movement, the insurrections of 1927, and the factory occupations of 1949.
[\quote]

I hardly think you have established your point. An insurrection that temporarily holds a few cities is not the same thing as a successful taking of state power in a country of half a billion people.

So long as the old ruling classes retained their grip on the greater part of the countryside they were able to raise armies there that could easily suppress uprisings in the cities.

This is not something specific to China. The sanguinary fate of the Commune of Paris, and of the Russian Soviets during the failed revolution of 1905 are testimony to this.





Firstly, I reject the notion that there is such a thing as a semi-feudal country in the contemporary epoch, and the fact that you believe this was a correct description for China in the 1920s and 30s shows that you don't know what feudalism is, because if you had a proper definition of feudalism (i.e. if you understood feudalism to mean a mode of production centered around the production of use values and peasants being coercivley tied to the land whilst retaining partial control over the means of production, and not just a loose term that can be applied to any society where the rural population makes up a majority) or a decent understanding of what China was like during this period, you would realize that China was a capitalist society, not a feudal society, semi- or otherwise, insofar as the category of feudalism was ever applicable to China.


I suspect that you are taking an overly narrow definition of feudalism. Feudalism is quite compatible with the existence of commodity production and the circulation of coin. The mere existence of a monetary economy is not itself a proof of a capitalist economy. Were it so, we would have to agree with Rostovtzeff or Momsen and conclude that Imperial Rome was capitalist.

I would describe social relations as being feudal where the surplus product is predominantly appropriated by a landlord class. This class can use a variety of ways to appropriate it : direct labour services, rent in kind, monetary rents, share cropping, interest on loans at usurious rates, charges for the use of water, mills etc. The landlord class may also employ some labour directly, but its ability to do this rests on its dominant position as landowner.

By this criteria I would say that China was semi-feudal. The dominant mode of surplus extraction was still the multitudinous forms of exploitation of peasant labour by the landlords. When I say dominant, I mean that the total number of hours of surplus labour time extracted this way exceed the total number of hours of surplus labour extracted in capitalist enterprises.

I would be very surprised if you could produce statistical data to refute my claim, that under the terms of this definition, China was semi-feudal during the 1930s.





- in fact it is precisely in these countries, as the weak points in the imperialist world-system, that revolution is most likely to break out, as demonstrated by the fact that Russia is thus far the only country in which the working class has succeeded in overthrowing capitalism and establishing itself as the ruling class.


But you should be very cautious not to over-generalise from one specific example.

It was said that during the mid 19th century, radicals were still entranced by the Great French Revolution of the previous century, allowing it to shape their expectations of the future. Russian history has exerted a similar fascination on radicals in our own age.

Russia in 1917 had some very particular combination circumstances which have not re-occured since the end of the Great War.


An absolute monarchy being overthrown
A predominantly peasant army mutinying as a result of effective defeat in a war of unprecedented horror.
A well established, if covert, Social Democratic labour movement.

We have had monarchies overthrown since then -- Iran being the most recent. And we have had nations defeated in terrible wars : Germany, Italy and Japan. But never since have we had the particular combination of circumstances that allowed councils of workers, soldiers and sailors to be in a position to take power.

It is very important to realise that revolution was only possible because there were councils of SOLDIERS and SAILORS. Workers councils are not in a position to be revolutionary without similar councils existing in the armed forces.

If you base your hopes of socialism on a repetition of the Russian model, then you will necessarily be waiting until the next Great War. I am not saying that this is an impossible or totally unreasonable model. It is certainly what the Communist International was expecting during the 1920s. It was even what Stalin still expected in the 1950s, but it does mean postponing social advance until some indefinite point in the future.




The onus is ultimately on you to prove Marx and Lenin wrong by giving us examples of countries where socialism has been established without the active participation of the working class.

I am not sure who you are arguing against here? I have never contended that such an outcome is likely, nor, as far as I am aware did the Chinese Communists during the Mao era - though perhaps you could find instances of it being argued by them in more recent years.

[Paul Cockshott]

[QUOTE=Jacob Richter;1620911]I'd like to hear Paul Cockshott's views on the applicability of "building" and/or "achieving" SIOC in really small countries such as Albania (the crux of Hoxhaism, btw).

Well it can obviously be done, as the experience of Cuba indicates, but it is bound to be a relatively poor and weak socialism when confined to a small country like Cuba or Albania.

Whether Cuba could have ever survived 50 years as a revolutionary state without the support of the USSR in its early decades seems doubtful.
Similarly Albania was very dependent on favourable trade with China.

In South America today, it is clearly in the interests of the left to push for the greatest possible continental integration.

[Paul Cockshott]

Quote:
I know that you are particularly interested in philosophy, but your remark does not go very far towards the development of specific economic and social policies for the Chinese countryside.
These, of course, should be determined by Chinese workers, not me, or you, or Mao, or Ho, or...
So only workers are to have a say not peasants?

But more generally, I think you are evading the orginal question. In the modern epoch, social changes are driven by policies advocated by political parties or subgroups within political parties which contend for support. It has been common ground among Social Democrats and Communists that political parties are needed to put forward such policies.

Sucessful politics involves the development of policies which not only win support, but which work when put into practice. If you are arguing against Chinese agrarian policy during the Mao years, it is presumably because you think that there was some better alternative policy which could have contended for support among the peasants of China.

Was the movement to establish agricultural cooperatives a mistake?
Was the movement to establish communes a mistake?
Was the subsequent movement to re-establish private peasant farming a mistake?

[BobKKKindle$]

He argues in 'On contradiction' that there are a multiplicity of opposed interests in society and that at different times, alliances form between classes that have opposed interests because they are for a time faced with a greater common enemy.You're assuming that 'On Contradiction' can be understood in isolation from the conditions in which it was written, as a document of Marxist theory, written by a leader of a revolutionary party. This is not the case, and by making this assumption you're falling into the same trap as those who believe that Stalin's theory of socialism in one country was a genuine theoretical challenge to Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, and not an ideological justification for the increasingly reactionary foreign policy of the Soviet Union, as well as the human costs of state-centered economic development. As you're doubtless aware, 'On Contradiction' was published in 1937, and its intended aim was to justify the beginning of the Second United Front between the KMT and the CPC, which occurred in the same year as a result of the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War. It contains no theoretical insights but enabled Mao to justify the abrupt change in policy to the rest of the party membership, who might otherwise have challenged the shift in direction. The ad-hoc creation of ideological justifications as a way of giving legitimacy to the twists and turns of policy is a defining characteristic of Stalinism, these policy changes being rooted in the changing interests of the bureaucracy, and is demonstrated not only by the Comintern's alternation between popular fronts and accusations of social fascism in the 1930s, but also the PRC's treatment of the Soviet Union, as the concept of revisionism was basically invented towards the end of the 1950s and applied to the Soviet leadership so that the PRC leaders could pretend that the worsening of relations was about fundamental differences of ideology and class rule, and not a diplomatic conflict between two rival ruling classes. I've pointed out elsewhere that whilst Mao later cited Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin at the 20th Congress as the first sign of capitalism being restored in the Soviet Union, when the speech was actually published the Chinese leadership had a generally favourable response, with Mao's main criticisms being that the speech did not explicitly identify the ways in which Stalin had undermined the revolution in China, as well as Khrushchev's failure to invite a delegation from the PRC, and even when the Soviet Union was being condemned as capitalist and fascist, from the early 1960s onwards, there were still forms of cooperation between the two countries, with the PRC accepting military aid and arranging contracts with the Soviets right up until 1964.

As for the issue of a common enemy, the history of national liberation struggles indicates that the bourgeoisie is fundamentally unable to carry out the task of national liberation because it is afraid that a defeat for imperialism will increase the confidence and militancy of the working class to such a degree that its own class rule will be threatened. Given these conditions, in the event of a conflict between imperialism and an oppressed nation such as China or Vietnam, the bourgeoisie will either side openly with the imperialist powers or will offer only a partial form of support, and side with imperialism at the first opportunity. There are numerous instances of this taking place in China. During the May 30th Movement, for example, the Chinese bourgeoisie initially gave its support, but as soon as workers employed by Chinese capitalists began to communicate with those who had been employed by foreign enterprises and learn that their own conditions were often worse, the response of the bourgeoisie was severe. In June, merchants withdrew their support from the federation that had been set up to coordiante the boycott movement, and, by August, both foreign and Chinese business had decided on a common front against “anarchy”, with gangsters ransacking the headquarters of the General Labour Union, shortly before the military banned all trade union organization in September, by which point employers had built up private armies to intimidate the workforce. A further example of the same weakness on the part of the Chinese bourgeoisie even when the CPC had ceased to be a revolutionary force is the New Fourth Army Incident, when, at the height of the struggle against the Japanese invasion, the PLA was ambushed by a KMT force, after having been ordered to withdraw from Anhui and Jiangsu, resulting in the deaths of more than 5,000 PLA soldiers. In this context I find it difficult to accept your argument that there was a unity of interests between the Chinese working class and the Chinese bourgeoisie, or that the latter was able to carry out any progressive role whatsoever, and a similar weakness has also been present in other national liberation struggles, both historic and contemporary.


I think that in all honesty you have to say whether you think the policies of all these CPs or organising partisan resistance to the Japanese and German invaders was mistaken?It's not for me to say whether the policy was mistaken or not because by this stage the CPC was no longer a revolutionary party - by saying that the policy was right or wrong or asking me what I think the party should have done you're assuming that the party was fundamentally different from the KMT and that it still retained an ability to fight for the interests of the working class, which it didn't, due to less than ten percent of its members being workers. All that can be said is that the CPC did fight against the Japanese, as an organization whose leadership was drawn from a segment of the petty-bourgeoisie, and that Marxists should have hoped for its victory, whilst refusing to give it a communist coloration.


I hardly think you have established your point. An insurrection that temporarily holds a few cities is not the same thing as a successful taking of state power in a country of half a billion people.
If this is your definition of an insurrection that has long-term success then the only successful insurrection is the Russian Revolution, which, as we've already seen, occurred in a predominantly rural country, albeit one in which there was a militant working class, concentrated in some of the largest and most advanced enterprises in the world at that time. If you've got another example of a socialist revolution, or if you've got an example of a country where any kind of urban insurrection was impossible, then please, provide it.


I would describe social relations as being feudal where the surplus product is predominantly appropriated by a landlord class. If you want to precisely define a given mode of production like feudalism then you have to begin by defining the concept of a mode of production (or, to be more precise, relations of production) in the abstract. Following Cohen, relations of production can be defined in terms of how much control the immediate producers have over the way in which their labour power is used, as well as the degree of control and ownership they have over the means of production. The capitalist mode of production is characterized by workers having complete legal control over their labour power due to them not being forced to work for any particular employer, as under feudalism and in societies based on slavery, whilst also being completely separated from the means of production, hence having no other way to survive except by selling their labour power to a capitalist. In this sense, workers are doubly free - free from being bound to a particular employer, and free from ownership of the means of production. The feudal mode of production, by contrast, is characterized by producers being tied to a specific member of the ruling class and not being allowed to move either between occupations or geographical areas, with producers paying a definite proportion of their output to the local member of the ruling class, in addition to carrying out other duties that comprise the social relations of feudal societies, such as providing military service for a given number of days each year. In addition, however, producers under feudalism also retain some degree of control over the means of production, in the form of land, and this is a further way in which they differ from producers under capitalism. Based on Chen's study (Chen, Shanghai, 1936) no less than 65 percent of the peasant population in the 1930s was either entirely landless or land hungry, i.e., possessing land in parcels too small and too burdened by all the adverse conditions of the regime to provide a living even on the barest subsistence level, despite the widespread illusion that the whole of the Chinese countryside is comprised solely of smallholders. Chen also identifies that by the overthrow of the Qing dynasty in 1911 much of land had been passed to absentee landlords, government officials, banks, and urban capitalists, and that, as a result of the change to a taxation system based solely on silver under Zhang Juzheng, during the Ming Dynasty, the Chinese countryside was thoroughly penetrated by the world market. The statistic relating to landlessness is especially important for our discussion because it indicates that more than half of what had once been the peasantry had been transformed into rural proletarians by the 1930s, comprised of individuals lacking any control over the means of production whatsoever, this process of proletarianization being enhanced by the expansion of rural industries such as silk and porcelain production alongside the deterioration of agricultural production, and resulting in considerable rural to urban migration, which would not have been possible if producers were still tied to the land, as under feudalism.

The fact that the ruling class in the countryside was comprised of the same individuals as the urban ruling class, and that these same individuals were bound up with imperialism and merchant capital, by the way, is also evidence that a distinction between the national and comprador bourgeoisie does not stand the test of reality.


But never since have we had the particular combination of circumstances that allowed councils of workers, soldiers and sailors to be in a position to take power.
The fact that Soviets have not taken power since the Russian Revolution and that the seizure of power by the Russian working class was greatly influenced by the conditions of wartime does not mean that, in the absence of a significant war, Soviet power is impossible, or that soldiers cannot be won over to the side of the revolution. The problem is one of revolutionary leadership.


Well it can obviously be done, as the experience of Cuba indicates,You are, as I said, a Stalinist - the Cuban revolution was not a revolution of the working class, hence, if you believe that the Cuban revolution was socialist, you believe that socialism can come into being through something other than the struggles of working people, including the bureaucratic maneuvers of a minority, which is the essence of Stalinism.

[Paul Cockshott]

You're assuming that 'On Contradiction' can be understood in isolation from the conditions in which it was written, as a document of Marxist theory, written by a leader of a revolutionary party.


Of course it can not be isolated from the conditions in which it was written. As to the other matters these are what is under dispute here.





'On Contradiction' was published in 1937, and its intended aim was to justify the beginning of the Second United Front between the KMT and the CPC, which occurred in the same year as a result of the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War. It contains no theoretical insights

There is no doubt about its purpose, the question of whether it contains insights or not is what is in dispute. That question can not be answered in abstraction from the next issue:





As for the issue of a common enemy, the history of national liberation struggles indicates that the bourgeoisie is fundamentally unable to carry out the task of national liberation because it is afraid that a defeat for imperialism will increase the confidence and militancy of the working class to such a degree that its own class rule will be threatened.


Mao was hardly unaware of this:

In short, of the three possible directions which the Kuomintang may take, the first, capitulation and civil war, is the road of destruction for Mr. Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang. The second, demagogic deception for the purpose of gaining time while clinging to fascist dictatorship and actively conducting secret preparations for civil war, likewise offers no salvation for Mr. Chiang and the Kuomintang. Only the third direction, the complete abandonment of the erroneous course of fascist dictatorship and civil war and the pursuit of the correct course of democracy and co-operation, can bring Mr. Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang on to the road of salvation. However, Mr. Chiang and the Kuomintang have so far done nothing to convince the people that they intend to move in the third direction; hence, the people throughout the country must remain on guard against the extremely grave danger of capitulation and civil war. (Mao, October 5, 1943)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Paul:


So only workers are to have a say not peasants?

Who said they shouldn't? What I did say was this:


These, of course, should be determined by Chinese workers, not me, or you, or Mao, or Ho, or...

Peasants, of course, are workers, too. But, a socialist revolution is led by the proletraian section of workers. And it's not up to me, or you, or Mao, or Lenin, or you..., to tell them what to do. That is the essence of socialism from below.


But more generally, I think you are evading the orginal question. In the modern epoch, social changes are driven by policies advocated by political parties or subgroups within political parties which contend for support. It has been common ground among Social Democrats and Communists that political parties are needed to put forward such policies.

Sucessful politics involves the development of policies which not only win support, but which work when put into practice. If you are arguing against Chinese agrarian policy during the Mao years, it is presumably because you think that there was some better alternative policy which could have contended for support among the peasants of China.


You are describing here socialism from above -- as I suggested you would.

No wonder it has failed, and many times.

How many more defeats do you want?


Was the movement to establish agricultural cooperatives a mistake?
Was the movement to establish communes a mistake?
Was the subsequent movement to re-establish private peasant farming a mistake?

Again, this is like asking me, "On the Titanic, was it a mistake to re-arrange the deck-chairs?"

Better to avoid the ice-berg.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Paul:


There is no doubt about its purpose, the question of whether it contains insights or not is what is in dispute. That question can not be answered in abstraction from the next issue:

But, I have already shown that Mao's theory (in 'On Contradiction') is flawed from start to finish:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=986357&postcount=2

http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=460

[Die Neue Zeit]

Peasants, of course, are workers, too. But, a socialist revolution is led by the proletraian section of workers.

Peasants are a homogenous strata, with bourgeois, petit-bourgeois, semi-proletarian, and other elements. Note that I said "semi," because even the low end of the peasantry isn't in the same class as the modern-day farm worker.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I wasn't replying to you.

[Paul Cockshott]

Paul:

Who said they shouldn't? What I did say was this:

Peasants, of course, are workers, too. But, a socialist revolution is led by the proletraian section of workers.

Up until this point you and Bob had been using the words peasant and worker to designate quite distinct classes.

I am surprised by the following quote given you self identification with Leninism


And it's not up to me, or you, or Mao, or Lenin, or you..., to tell them what to do. That is the essence of socialism from below.

It is some 30 or 40 years since I read Lenin's book 'What is to be done', and I know that memory can play tricks with you, but my memory of the book was that he was saying something rather different from you on this.

I seem to recall that he argued that socialist ideas would not arise spontaneously from below but were instead introduced into the labour movement by political parties. I understand that this has long been a point of contention between anarchists and communists, with the anarchists putting forward the type of position you seem to advocate, but I had not understood you to be an anarchist.



Again, this is like asking me, "On the Titanic, was it a mistake to re-arrange the deck-chairs?"

Better to avoid the ice-berg.
I dont quite understand your point here.

Are you saying that peasant movements will spontaneously develop towards socialism 'from below' in the absence of agitation an propaganda by a socialist political party?

Is the organised socialist party the 'Iceberg' you are refering too?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Paul:


Up until this point you and Bob had been using the words peasant and worker to designate quite distinct classes.

Well, Bobk can speak for himself, but I don't think I was using that word this way.


I am surprised by the following quote given you self identification with Leninism

I'm surprsied too, but about your rather narrow understanding of Leninism.


It is some 30 or 40 years since I read Lenin's book 'What is to be done', and I know that memory can play tricks with you, but my memory of the book was that he was saying something rather different from you on this.

I seem to recall that he argued that socialist ideas would not arise spontaneously from below but were instead introduced into the labour movement by political parties. I understand that this has long been a point of contention between anarchists and communists, with the anarchists putting forward the type of position you seem to advocate, but I had not understood you to be an anarchist.

May I suggest, therefore, you read the followng:

Lih, Lars. (2006), Lenin Rediscovered. What is To Be Done? In Context (EJ Brill).

Which puts the record straight, and shows that Lenin did not argue that socialism must come from 'without'.


I dont quite understand your point here.

Are you saying that peasant movements will spontaneously develop towards socialism 'from below' in the absence of agitation an propaganda by a socialist political party?

Is the organised socialist party the 'Iceberg' you are refering too?

It's quite straight-forward. Trying to create socialism in a backward country is like sailing a large ship straight into an iceberg.

Socialism isn't to be created by a 'triumph of the will'.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I already recommended Lih's book to Paul, and if you had read it and also Lih's other papers, you too would've at least been tempted to be a "neo-Kautskyist" as I've become.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No chance.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Lars Lih himself admitted to spearheading a sort of "Kautsky Revival," especially on the left. :)

VI Lenin and the influence of Kautsky, by Lars Lih (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/783/vileninandtheinfluence.php) (yes, please read the article)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No thanks.

[Paul Cockshott]

Paul:


Which puts the record straight, and shows that Lenin did not argue that socialism must come from 'without'.

Well even if we reject the word 'without', I dont think you can sustain the idea that Lenin was against the putting forward of concrete policies by a socialist party, which is the position you were taking to justify why no policies should be putforward on agrarian policy.


It's quite straight-forward. Trying to create socialism in a backward country is like sailing a large ship straight into an iceberg.


Ok so the mass of the population in backward countries must just put up with things for a few generations until capitalism is fully developed?

Such a programme would have had little appeal to the communist movement in China.

[Paul Cockshott]

Incidentally I said nothing about introduced from without what I said was:

I seem to recall that he argued that socialist ideas would not arise spontaneously from below but were instead introduced into the labour movement by political parties.

Are you denying that he said that socialist political parties were essential to introduce socialist ideas into the workers movement?

[Paul Cockshott]

Lars Lih himself admitted to spearheading a sort of "Kautsky Revival," especially on the left. :)

VI Lenin and the influence of Kautsky, by Lars Lih (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/783/vileninandtheinfluence.php) (yes, please read the article)
I have seen the price that Historical Materialism are charging for the book, and postponed my purchase to the indefinite future.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There is a paperback edition of the book, which is a lot cheaper.

Moreover, I myself don't have a copy of the book, but use the free material provided here:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Paul C:


Well even if we reject the word 'without', I dont think you can sustain the idea that Lenin was against the putting forward of concrete policies by a socialist party, which is the position you were taking to justify why no policies should be putforward on agrarian policy.

Only after it became apparent to him that the revolution was degenerating, and the working class had all but disappeared in Russia. As a result, the Bolshevik party rapidly degenerated and Stalin's regime inherited the mess, becoming more like the future CCP: imposing socialism from above -- which history has helpfully refuted, many times over.


Ok so the mass of the population in backward countries must just put up with things for a few generations until capitalism is fully developed?

Not at all. You need to familiarise yourself with Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution and Tony Cliff's ammendation of it.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1963/xx/permrev.htm


Such a programme would have had little appeal to the communist movement in China.

And history passed a severe judgement on them, too, didn't it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Paul C:


Are you denying that he said that socialist political parties were essential to introduce socialist ideas into the workers movement?

Yes.

If you can't afford Lars Lih's book, these reviews will give you a reasonably good overview of the argument:

http://isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=218

http://johnmolyneux.blogspot.com/2006/11/lihs-lenin-review-of-lars-t-lih-lenin.html

[Die Neue Zeit]

To both of you still arguing, "Social Democracy" in the form of a real party was "the merger of socialism and the worker movement." It encompassed electoral machinery, non-electoral political organization, social movements, and mutual aid all at once.

[syndicat]

Based on Chen's study (Chen, Shanghai, 1936) no less than 65 percent of the peasant population in the 1930s was either entirely landless or land hungry, i.e., possessing land in parcels too small and too burdened by all the adverse conditions of the regime to provide a living even on the barest subsistence level, despite the widespread illusion that the whole of the Chinese countryside is comprised solely of smallholders. Chen also identifies that by the overthrow of the Qing dynasty in 1911 much of land had been passed to absentee landlords, government officials, banks, and urban capitalists, and that, as a result of the change to a taxation system based solely on silver under Zhang Juzheng, during the Ming Dynasty, the Chinese countryside was thoroughly penetrated by the world market. The statistic relating to landlessness is especially important for our discussion because it indicates that more than half of what had once been the peasantry had been transformed into rural proletarians by the 1930s, comprised of individuals lacking any control over the means of production whatsoever, this process of proletarianization being enhanced by the expansion of rural industries such as silk and porcelain production alongside the deterioration of agricultural production, and resulting in considerable rural to urban migration, which would not have been possible if producers were still tied to the land, as under feudalism.

The fact that the ruling class in the countryside was comprised of the same individuals as the urban ruling class, and that these same individuals were bound up with imperialism and merchant capital, by the way, is also evidence that a distinction between the national and comprador bourgeoisie does not stand the test of reality.


This implies that a very large part of those who were engaged in farm work were proletarians. The proletarian class isn't just urban workers. Capitalism in Britain began through initiatives, in part, of landowners and in an agrarian country, creating a large landless farm laborer population, who were then subsequently also exploited increasingly in manufacturing, first thru the putting out system.

Thus it doesn't seem that one could argue a socialist revolution from below was impossible in China based on absence of a proletarian class.

[BobKKKindle$]

Thus it doesn't seem that one could argue a socialist revolution from below was impossible in China based on absence of a proletarian class.I agree, in that there was a large proletarian population in China in the 1920s even though it was smaller as a proportion of the population than the working class in Russia at the same point in time. However, I'm not sure I'd agree that the existence of a large rural proletariat means that revolution was possible because I think that a socialist revolution can ultimately be carried out only by the urban section of the proletariat, mainly because rural proletarians, whilst being separated from the means of production in the same way as workers in the cities, are still working on the land, which, unlike factories and the other kinds of means of production that urban workers use, is something that can be divided, transforming rural proletarians in members of the petty-bourgeoisie. The history of peasant movements indicates that this is normally the kind of social change that poor peasants and landless labourers have supported - not collective ownership, and I think Makhno's biography even admits this. Now, something tells me that we've had this same discussion before, and I remember the last time I made this point you pointed to truck drivers as an example of non-rural workers who also use means of production that do not have to be combined in order to work (unlike, say, an assembly line) and on this basis you argued that there is nothing to prevent rural proletarians from being a revolutionary class. Do correct me if this is an unfair description of what you argued, though. The problem with this argument is that whilst trucks (I guess the Chinese equivalent from the 1920s would be rickshaws, or the small boats that were used to transport goods and people up and down China's major rivers) are physically distinct from one another, there is still a need for coordination and collective management in order to make a transport system work, which means that truck workers are liable to support collective ownership in the same way as workers who are employed in factories, whereas farms can operate as independent producers without coordinating their activities.

I think Marx also acknowledged that there is a difference between rural and urban proletarians because (according to Leopold) part of his appraisal of capitalism is the recognition that capitalism leads to producers being freed from “engulfment”, this idea being rooted in Hegel's account of a transition from a state of undifferentiated unity, to differentiated disunity, and then to differentiated unity, this final stage marking the attainment of communism. It is the second stage that is of interest here because, for Marx, there is a kind of liberation involved whereby the subject does not break from the constraints in which they are involved but they are at least now aware of these constraints, having previously being ignorant of them due to the conditions of rural life – this is tied to Marx's critique of the romantic critique of capitalism, which romanticizes pre-capitalist societies and does not regard capitalism as historically progressive.

PS - JR and co, if you want to discuss Lenin and Kautsky, then maybe you can start a new thread, or ask me to split this one, as I think it's better we keep this thread focused on China.

[syndicat]

I agree, in that there was a large proletarian population in China in the 1920s even though it was smaller as a proportion of the population than the working class in Russia at the same point in time. However, I'm not sure I'd agree that the existence of a large rural proletariat means that revolution was possible because I think that a socialist revolution can ultimately be carried out only by the urban section of the proletariat, mainly because rural proletarians, whilst being separated from the means of production in the same way as workers in the cities, are still working on the land, which, unlike factories and the other kinds of means of production that urban workers use, is something that can be divided, transforming rural proletarians in members of the petty-bourgeoisie. The history of peasant movements indicates that this is normally the kind of social change that poor peasants and landless labourers have supported - not collective ownership, and I think Makhno's biography even admits this.

Well, the Spanish revolution is a counter-example. But the reason is that, in that case, radical farm worker unionism had been cultivated and developed for years, along with revolutionary ideas. In 1936 the UGT's Land Workers Federation, largely influenced by the Left Socialists...a left Marxist tendency...were a mass revolutionary movement of half a million in the countryside. Their methods and program were virtually identical to the syndicalist Campesinos Federation of the CNT, and the two unions acted in an alliance. The main aim of that alliance was the destruction of wage-labor in the countryside, by seizing the excess land of the Spanish kulak class as well as large land holdings, and re-organizing the rural economy on the basis of social ownership and collective self-management. (There were some land-owning farmers who resisted collectivization, like the grape vine owners in Catalonia or the citrus orchard owners in Valencia. The Communists later attempted to organize them as a force to counter the anarchist/socialist alliance of the collectivizers. The CNT-UGT alliance included both landless wage-laborers as well as some small holders whose holdings were too small to live on and who from time to time worked for wages.)

But Spanish agriculture in the '30s was thorougly capitalist in its organization and orientation...perhaps more so than in China, as Spain was a more developed country. And the rural farm worker movement was closely allied to the urban working class, who came to its defense (through things like the militias).

But I don't want to derail the thread from focusing on China.

[syndicat]

Bob K:
in fact it is precisely in these countries, as the weak points in the imperialist world-system, that revolution is most likely to break out, as demonstrated by the fact that Russia is thus far the only country in which the working class has succeeded in overthrowing capitalism and establishing itself as the ruling class.

I suppose the reason I'd say Leninism in practice isn't socialism from below is because I don't think the working class did establish itself in power in Russia. I'd also remind you that Lenin said, "The slogan "only from below" is an anarchist slogan."

As to why workers were not in power: 1. the Soviets in big cities were topdown affairs where power was concentrated in the executive committees,controlled by the party intelligentsia (initially Menshevik, later Bolshevik) (see "Soviets and Factory Committees in the Russian Revolution" by Pete Rachleff), and when the Bolsheviks lost local soviet elections in spring of 1918, they resorted to staying in power thru revolutionary committees backed by military force, refusing to recognize the results of the elections, so apparently workers were not being allowed to select who should control the soviets; 2. Lenin's socalled "worker control" was nothing more than workers checking management, not worker management; after all, as Lenin said in "State and Revolution", the German post office was a good model for socialism; 3. in Nov 1917 the Supreme Council of National Economy was set up top down, by the Council of People's Commissars, to plan the whole national economy, made up of experts, trade union bureaucrats and party members, all appointed from above; 4. the attempt of elements of the factory committee movement to endorse workers management and planning from below through a national congress of factory committees was blocked by vote of Bolsheviks & Mensheviks at first Russian trade union congress in Jan 1918.

In "Before Stalinism", Sam Farber makes the point that neither Menshevism nor Bolshevism had any concept of direct participatory democracy. they didn't see any importance to direct participation in the making of decisions, through something like assemblies in workplaces and neighborhoods or local soviets actually controlled by worker assemblies. They were focused on control of the state, and interpreted democracy only as election of leaders to make decisions for you. As Getzler shows in his book on the Kronstadt soviet, it did have that kind of direct rank and file power in its soviet in 1917 and early 1918...but the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were not dominant there. The libertarian socialist left (maximalists and syndicalists) were dominant there.

I'd just throw this in to back up the comment of one person who questioned the idea of Leninism being a form of socialism from below.

But don't let me derail the focus of the thread on China. Carry on.

[Saorsa]

There are far too many people on this site typical of everything that is wrong with the Western 'left' today. People who treat Marxism as an abstract theoretical hobby, activism as a pathway into a fun debating circle in which the object is to prove your opponent wrong, to prove that you know Marxism better than they do. It's about scoring points to them, and criticising the percieved failings of others. It's about reading books, finding quotes and proving yourself to be more well read than someone else. Marxism becomes a gigantic pissing contest.

To most Maoists in the world today, such as the comrades in Nepal, the Philippines, India and elsewhere, the problems they're grappling with are how to actually concretely defeat the reactionary state forces, make revolution and stay alive in the process of doing so. This is how the Maoism of the 21st century has been synthesised, from the RL experience of workers and peasants in the poorest parts of the world struggling against oppression. It's a profoundly liberatory, profoundly democratic and profoundly revolutionary set of ideas. And these ideas work - the various Maoist and Maoist-inspired mass movements around the world are proof of that.

It's very easy to sit in front of a computer and write about how socialism in one country is impossible, and thus since Lenin/Stalin/Mao/whoever didn't somehow magically click their fingers and spark an instantaneous worldwide revolution that everyone took part in and nobody opposed, their attempts at leading revolution were inevitably doomed to failure and they themselves were counter-revolutionaries. The same goes for all the other dogmas of the ultra-'left'.

Communist ideas need to be taken out of the realms of pure, abstract theory (where they are safe and can be comfortably defended) and thrown into the dirtiness, unpredictability and complexity of the real world. They need to be discussed and synthesised by mass movements of workers, peasants and progressive people seeking to change the world. And having been tested in practice, they can then be cautiously and tentatively upheld as 'correct'.

But no, to most of the people on this site and in the various communist sects of the West it's more important that an idea closely matches a selection of Marx quotes, or doesn't contradict a polemic written by Trotsky.

I think we have a hell of a lot to learn from the Maoist movements in the world today. And the day's not far off when people are going to be forced to engage with this new, dynamic brand of Maoism, whether they like it or not. Most Western 'revolutionaries' will just dismiss it, go home and leaf through their aging Marxist tomes, nodding their heads every time they read a line that reinforces their prejudices and dogmas. But I'm hopeful that some will be less arrogant, and take a more humble approach to the successes and achievements of actual revolutions, actual breakthroughs in a world mostly devoid of socialist success stories.

In particular a new generation of young activists who haven't grown up locked into the Trotsky/Stalin paradigm and who haven't wasted years of activism in pointless sectarianism over long dead leaders of now non-existent nationstates. These people will be the ones who will engage with and try to learn from the experience of Maoist revolution in the Third World, and who will actually practice internationalism in regard to it, rather than condemning from afar and assuming the kind of arrogant, superior attitude so typical of the over-intellectualised academic leftist.

Every time a new wave of revolution sweeps the world, there's a hell of a lot of 'socialists' who get left behind. In 1917 probably the majority of the world's 'socialists' drifted away into irrelevancy as a new, dynamic set of ideas and concrete practices exploded onto the world stage, forcing everyone to engage with it. The same thing happened in the 60s and 70s as new communist groups and currents emerged across the world.

I think we're about to see something similar in the next wee while. The Nepali Maoists are knocking on the doors of Singha Durbar, the People's War in India is spreading rapidly throughout the country, the Phillipinos defy every attempt by the government to crush them and continue to spread their influence... The international communist movement is going to be repolarised, and a lot of it's current members will be left by the wayside.

I can't wait.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Paul Cockshott]

Bob K:

In "Before Stalinism", Sam Farber makes the point that neither Menshevism nor Bolshevism had any concept of direct participatory democracy. they didn't see any importance to direct participation in the making of decisions, through something like assemblies in workplaces and neighborhoods or local soviets actually controlled by worker assemblies. They were focused on control of the state, and interpreted democracy only as election of leaders to make decisions for you. As Getzler shows in his book on the Kronstadt soviet, it did have that kind of direct rank and file power in its soviet in 1917 and early 1918...but the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were not dominant there. The libertarian socialist left (maximalists and syndicalists) were dominant there. . Carry on.

This is a crucial point. I would go further and say that any system of soviets based on elections rather than selection by lot will, in the presence of strong political parties, end up by being dominated by them and lead to a one party state.

To my view the critical failure in China came later, when during the cultural revolution the left failed to come up with a political form that could ensure working class and peasant dominance of the state power. But this failure was not surprising given that the whole tradition of the communist movement had never thought out any constitutional from more sophisticated than some form of indirect electoral representation.

The attack by Engels and Kautsky on the principle of direct initiative and legislation undermined the credibility of participatory democracy in the subsequent history of the social democratic/communist movement.

[Paul Cockshott]

Quote:
Well even if we reject the word 'without', I dont think you can sustain the idea that Lenin was against the putting forward of concrete policies by a socialist party, which is the position you were taking to justify why no policies should be putforward on agrarian policy.
Only after it became apparent to him that the revolution was degenerating, and the working class had all but disappeared in Russia. As a result, the Bolshevik party rapidly degenerated and Stalin's regime inherited the mess, becoming more like the future CCP: imposing socialism from above -- which history has helpfully refuted, many times over.


Surely this is not sustainable. The Impending Catastrophe, just to take one instance, contains concrete policies.

[Paul Cockshott]

I think we're about to see something similar in the next wee while. The Nepali Maoists are knocking on the doors of Singha Durbar, the People's War in India is spreading rapidly throughout the country, the Phillipinos defy every attempt by the government to crush them and continue to spread their influence... The international communist movement is going to be repolarised, and a lot of it's current members will be left by the wayside.


Good point, but we do have the problem of the nature of the current CP government in China and how the Indian maoists are to avoid a similar situation 40 years hence.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Surely this is not sustainable. The Impending Catastrophe, just to take one instance, contains concrete policies.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/index.htm

The problem with Impending Catastrophe is that it is an economic platform, much like the method of a certain "transitory action platform."

Lenin's "Control measures" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/03.htm#v25zz99h-331) and "Abolition of Commercial Secrecy" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/06.htm#v25zz99h-342) = Trotsky's “Business Secrets” and Workers’ Control of Industry (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#bs)

Lenin's Nationalisation of the Banks (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/04.htm#v25zz99h-333) = Trotsky's Expropriation of the Private Banks and State-ization of the Credit System (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#pb)

Lenin's Nationalisation of the Syndicates (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/05.htm#v25zz99h-339) = Trotsky's Expropriation of Separate Groups of Capitalists (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#sg)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Paul:


Surely this is not sustainable. The Impending Catastrophe, just to take one instance, contains concrete policies.

Indeed, but this book was published in late October 1917, when Lenin was part of a successful workers' revolution. No doubt, had I been there then, I too would be engaged in such discussions. But I wasn't. Nor was I involved in one in China in 1949 -- not only was I not there, it wasn't even a proletarian revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Someone who thinks the notion that only a working class revolution can lead to socialism is contentious. Now, someone can have sophisticated views without accepting that notion (although I have my doubts about anyone who thinks China was a feudal society in the 1920s) but if you don't accept that notion as the basis of your politics, then you're not a Marxist.

So why then, does the Communist Manifesto mention Bourgeois Socialism, Petit-Bourgeois Socialism, True Socialism, and Utopian Socialism as legitimate forms of "Socialism"?


I don't think Trotsky described the SPD as "social-corporatists", in fact that strikes me as one of the many things you've made up, like describing New Labour as social-fascists. In any case, we're not talking about Germany in the 1930s, we're talking about China in the 1920s.

Trotsky didn't use the term "social-corporatist"; I did. And I retract my "social-fascist" statements re. NuLabour, recognizing the more potent, evidence-heavy critique behind the term social-corporatist.

[Paul Cockshott]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/index.htm

The problem with Impending Catastrophe is that it is an economic platform, much like the method of a certain "transitory action platform."

Lenin's "Control measures" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/03.htm#v25zz99h-331) and "Abolition of Commercial Secrecy" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/06.htm#v25zz99h-342) = Trotsky's “Business Secrets” and Workers’ Control of Industry (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#bs)

Lenin's Nationalisation of the Banks (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/04.htm#v25zz99h-333) = Trotsky's Expropriation of the Private Banks and State-ization of the Credit System (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#pb)

Lenin's Nationalisation of the Syndicates (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/05.htm#v25zz99h-339) = Trotsky's Expropriation of Separate Groups of Capitalists (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#sg)

I agree that Trotkys one looks as if it was influenced by Lenin's earlier one.

[Paul Cockshott]

Paul:



Indeed, but this book was published in late October 1917, when Lenin was part of a successful workers' revolution. No doubt, had I been there then, I too would be engaged in such discussions. But I wasn't. Nor was I involved in one in China in 1949 -- not only was I not there, it wasn't even a proletarian revolution.
This does not quite match up with your earlier statement where you said that Lenin only put forward concrete policies
Only after it became apparent to him that the revolution was degenerating, and the working class had all but disappeared in Russia

But if you feel you should be under a self denying ordinance to refrain from comment as to what agrarian policy should have been during the Chinese revolution since you were not there at the time, you should, by the same ordinance, presumably refrain from criticism of the actions taken by the revolutionaries in China. They were on the spot and having to deal with the issues after all, and we are neither then nor there.


But this is not what you do, instead you condemn them in general terms, but say nothing specific about their main policies. You neither say the policies were right, nor that they were wrong -- but in either case they were worthy of your condemnation.

When you look at what the Indian Maoists are doing now, in what way do you think the policies that they are carrying out in their base areas are wrong?

Unless you have specific criticisms, it might lead readers to think that there was a sectarian element to your approach, condemning them because they did not make any favourable remarks about Tony Cliff in their literature.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I agree that Trotkys one looks as if it was influenced by Lenin's earlier one.

So why, then, did you recommend Impending Catastrophe and not Trotsky's TP? Both works employ Krichevskii's method of economic-to-political agitation, and the Comintern's further development of transitory action platforms also followed Krichevskii's approach (as noted by comrade Rakunin). This development even affected the culmination of the Comintern's programmatic thinking, as transcribed by Mike Macnair:

Programme of the Communist International (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/6th-congress/index.htm)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Paul:


This does not quite match up with your earlier statement where you said that Lenin only put forward concrete policies

Where did I say this?


But if you feel you should be under a self denying ordinance to refrain from comment as to what agrarian policy should have been during the Chinese revolution since you were not there at the time, you should, by the same ordinance, presumably refrain from criticism of the actions taken by the revolutionaries in China. They were on the spot and having to deal with the issues after all, and we are neither then nor there.

Not so, since it is entirely legitimate to advance criticisms of those who are trying undemocratically to introduce socialism from above. Any attempt by me to tell workers what to do (if I'm not involved in what they are doing) would be for me to line up with this attempt to impose socialism from above, or from outside.


But this is not what you do, instead you condemn them in general terms, but say nothing specific about their main policies. You neither say the policies were right, nor that they were wrong -- but in either case they were worthy of your condemnation.

When you look at what the Indian Maoists are doing now, in what way do you think the policies that they are carrying out in their base areas are wrong?

Unless you have specific criticisms, it might lead readers to think that there was a sectarian element to your approach, condemning them because they did not make any favourable remarks about Tony Cliff in their literature.

As we can see, you are trying to deflect attention from your parlous theoretical position onto me.

In your place, I think I might do the same.

What I do or do not think is irrelevant to the fact that Mao imposed his ideas on the Chinese people, dressed-up as the 'mass line', which was in fact, as we now know, not 'from the masses', but 'from the party to the masses', and this was integral to the CCP's endeavour to introduce socialism from above.

No wonder it failed.

[Saorsa]

Mao imposed his ideas? Lol yeah Mao and the CCP were able to just impose their will on hundreds of millions of people. The people were probably just stupid, after all. The Chinese people sat by passively while Mao and the evil Stalinoids imposed their nefarious will.

Come on. The CCP could never have risen to power without the active participation and support of the masses. The Chinese Revolution, and in particular the great attempt to revitalise and extend it, the cultural revolution, remains the greatest exercise in liberation and rule by the people in history. A flawed and ultimately unsuccesful revolution sure, but still the greatest advance towards true freedom ever.

Still, to a Cliffite real life revolutions are things to be condemned and opposed and contemptuously dismissed. Much more fun to spend one's life arguing about Stalin on university campuses

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrade Alastair:


Mao imposed his ideas? Lol yeah Mao and the CCP were able to just impose their will on hundreds of millions of people. The people were probably just stupid, after all. The Chinese people sat by passively while Mao and the evil Stalinoids imposed their nefarious will.

As Marx said, the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class.

Anyway, we have been over this already; check this out:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mass-line-vs-t87244/index.html


Still, to a Cliffite real life revolutions are things to be condemned and opposed and contemptuously dismissed. Much more fun to spend one's life arguing about Stalin on university campuses

Must be; good job I'm not a 'Cliffite', then...

[Saorsa]

As Marx said, the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class.Which is why in revolutionary China the ruling ideas were those of Marxism-Leninism, equality for women, minorities and all the oppressed, and popular democracy. China was ruled by the masses.

Cherrypicking Marx quotes out of context may make you look cool to your academic friends, but it doesn't make your politics any less crap.


Must be; good job I'm not a 'Cliffite', then... I don't pay very close attention to you as I don't find you or your 'ideas' particularly interesting, but as far as I was aware you are a member of the SWP, a Cliffite organisation. You may have differences with the dominant political line in the SWP (notably on dialectics), but are your politics markedly different from the organisation's official line?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrade Alastair:


Which is why in revolutionary China the ruling ideas were those of Marxism-Leninism, equality for women, minorities and all the oppressed, and popular democracy. China was ruled by the masses.

Not so, otherwise Mao and his henchment would not have tried to build socialism in one country, nor would they have ignored this comment of Marx's:


The emancipation of the working class must be an act of the workers themselves

Not the red army.


Cherrypicking Marx quotes out of context may make you look cool to your academic friends....

Ok, smarty pants, supply the 'correct context' of the quote I just gave from Marx.


but it doesn't make your politics any less crap

Maybe so, maybe not -- but certainly 'less c*ap' than yours.


I don't pay very close attention to you as I don't find you or your 'ideas' particularly interesting, but as far as I was aware you are a member of the SWP, a Cliffite organisation. You may have differences with the dominant political line in the SWP (notably on dialectics), but are your politics markedly different from the organisation's official line?

I'm not in the SWP.

[Kayser_Soso]

The problem here is that Trots can always resort to the ambiguity of their arguments and theoretical concepts so that they will always turn out right. If we speak of socialism in one country for example, what precisely does that mean? It would be incorrect to state that Stalin did not attempt to spread revolution to other countries, and indeed there was some success in this attempt. On the other hand we realize that permanent revolution doesn't mean simultaneous revolution everywhere, but we must ask what should a nation or group of socialist republics do when it is clear that the revolution won't spread further for the foreseeable future?

The ambiguity means Trots can attack any attempt at socialist construction or consolidation as "socialism in one country", and then will focus all their energies on criticizing that regime "from the left", thus indirectly helping the class enemies around it. The history of Trotskyism, in fact their own words, shows that they are most devoted to attacking socialist regimes than anything else. Aside from this, Trotskyite "solutions" such as "spread the revolution" or what should be done when the revolution stalls are virtually non-existent. Trotskyism works well on paper and in academia. Not so well in the real world.

Lenin acknowledged that owing to differing conditions in the world, it was possible for socialist states to exist as a number of independent republics. He said that the "FINAL" victory of socialism could only be assured after socialism had spread throughout the globe. But on the other hand, we should also take note that capitalism, among other modes of production, did not need to spread all over the world immediately. Why should we expect socialism to be so radically different? If socialism is truly something so fragile that it can only be successful by strict adherence to dogma and an all-or-nothing belief, then the workers would be better off under capitalism, and certainly that is the general response to Trotskyism. Trotskyism is nothing but a phony left-wing argument in favor of the status quo.

[Kayser_Soso]

Comrade Alastair:



As Marx said, the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class.



If this is true, then how do you explain why there is such a large anti-globalization movement, so many Communists, anarchists, etc., Islamic fundamentalists in capitalist, non-Islamic countries, etc. Again, you tend to take Marx and Lenin quotes you like, and attach to them the status of holy dogma.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kayser:


If this is true, then how do you explain why there is such a large anti-globalization movement, so many Communists, anarchists, etc., Islamic fundamentalists in capitalist, non-Islamic countries, etc.

'Ruling ideas' does not mean 'only ideas'. I'm sorry you are having problems with basic English


Again, you tend to take Marx and Lenin quotes you like, and attach to them the status of holy dogma.

That's a bit rich coming from an ML-er...:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kayser:


The problem here is that Trots can always resort to the ambiguity of their arguments and theoretical concepts so that they will always turn out right. If we speak of socialism in one country for example, what precisely does that mean? It would be incorrect to state that Stalin did not attempt to spread revolution to other countries, and indeed there was some success in this attempt. On the other hand we realize that permanent revolution doesn't mean simultaneous revolution everywhere, but we must ask what should a nation or group of socialist republics do when it is clear that the revolution won't spread further for the foreseeable future?

The ambiguity means Trots can attack any attempt at socialist construction or consolidation as "socialism in one country", and then will focus all their energies on criticizing that regime "from the left", thus indirectly helping the class enemies around it. The history of Trotskyism, in fact their own words, shows that they are most devoted to attacking socialist regimes than anything else. Aside from this, Trotskyite "solutions" such as "spread the revolution" or what should be done when the revolution stalls are virtually non-existent. Trotskyism works well on paper and in academia. Not so well in the real world.

Lenin acknowledged that owing to differing conditions in the world, it was possible for socialist states to exist as a number of independent republics. He said that the "FINAL" victory of socialism could only be assured after socialism had spread throughout the globe. But on the other hand, we should also take note that capitalism, among other modes of production, did not need to spread all over the world immediately. Why should we expect socialism to be so radically different? If socialism is truly something so fragile that it can only be successful by strict adherence to dogma and an all-or-nothing belief, then the workers would be better off under capitalism, and certainly that is the general response to Trotskyism. Trotskyism is nothing but a phony left-wing argument in favor of the status quo.

Nice armchair theory, except it has all been refuted by history, whereas our ideas haven't been tested yet, and thus haven't been refuted.

[Kayser_Soso]

That's a bit rich coming from an ML-er...:lol:

Why would that be the case? Aside from the fact that you Trots are always accusing "Stalinists" of deviating from the holy prophesies, I have clearly commented on the limitations of the theories of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hoxha, etc. In other words, there is no reason to see that comment as ironic.

[Kayser_Soso]

Kayser:



Nice armchair theory, except it has all been refuted by history,

You didn't address anything in this post. Moreover, your claim that "it"(whatever it is) has been refuted by history is logical fallacious on several levels, as I have pointed out before. You can ***** and whine and claim that it isn't in a dozen or so more posts, but it will still be thus. And you won't even begin to alter that fact until you can come up with a coherent explanation of the difference between permanent revolution and socialism in one country.



whereas our ideas haven't been tested yet, and thus haven't been refuted.

The idea that I can genetically raise a gigantic caterpillar that will devour capitalists hasn't been tested yet and thus also hasn't been refuted. What a hilarious argument that is; though it is not a surprise. First off, a number of Trotskyite theories WERE tested and quickly refuted. The revolution was supposed to spread to Germany and Hungary, it didn't. Socialism was supposed to be so firmly entrenched in the USSR that it could only be overthrown by civil war- ditto. The Wehrmacht was made up of German workers and farmers, and so they were inevitably going to have sympathy on the Soviet citizens under occupation- if only...

Maybe if your theories have such a problem even getting off the ground, you might need to go back to the drawing board.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KS:


Why would that be the case?

I don't know. Perhaps you are all neurotics sycophants, scared to death of 'Revisionism'!"...


Aside from the fact that you Trots are always accusing "Stalinists" of deviating from the holy prophesies, I have clearly commented on the limitations of the theories of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hoxha, etc. In other words, there is no reason to see that comment as ironic.

This seems to be a description of us Trotskyists too.:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KS:


You didn't address anything in this post. Moreover, your claim that "it"(whatever it is) has been refuted by history is logical fallacious on several levels, as I have pointed out before. You can ***** and whine and claim that it isn't in a dozen or so more posts, but it will still be thus. And you won't even begin to alter that fact until you can come up with a coherent explanation of the difference between permanent revolution and socialism in one country.

Well you alleged this but couldn't quite manage the elusive 'proof'.


The idea that I can genetically raise a gigantic caterpillar that will devour capitalists hasn't been tested yet and thus also hasn't been refuted. What a hilarious argument that is; though it is not a surprise. First off, a number of Trotskyite theories WERE tested and quickly refuted. The revolution was supposed to spread to Germany and Hungary, it didn't. Socialism was supposed to be so firmly entrenched in the USSR that it could only be overthrown by civil war- ditto. The Wehrmacht was made up of German workers and farmers, and so they were inevitably going to have sympathy on the Soviet citizens under occupation- if only...

I said 'our ideas', not Trotsky's. Seems your sectarian hatred has affected your capacity to read.


Maybe if your theories have such a problem even getting off the ground, you might need to go back to the drawing board.

Maybe so, maybe not; but one thing is clear: history has refuted the idea that socialism can be created in one country.

Have a nice fume...:)

[RHIZOMES]

Maybe so, maybe not; but one thing is clear: history has refuted the idea that socialism can be created in one country.

Oh yes because waiting for all the other countries to go socialist was just such a raging success. :rolleyes:

[Kayser_Soso]

KS:



Well you alleged this but couldn't quite manage the elusive 'proof'.

You don't need outside evidence to show that an argument is fallacious. If I say that one aspect of your argument is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc", which is true in this case, I don't need to cite some statistical study to back that up. It is that sort of argument rolled in with begging the question.




I said 'our ideas', not Trotsky's. Seems your sectarian hatred has affected your capacity to read.

I'm sorry, your focus on socialism in one country(albeit without defining what you mean) led me to believe you were a Trotskyite. Now you say you are a follower of a sect even less successful than his?




Maybe so, maybe not; but one thing is clear: history has refuted the idea that socialism can be created in one country.


Again, fallacious argument, invalid. Go ahead and put it in your sig. It will still be just as illogical.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Arizona:


Oh yes because waiting for all the other countries to go socialist was just such a raging success.

Well, the alternative idea has already been refuted by history.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KS:


You don't need outside evidence to show that an argument is fallacious. If I say that one aspect of your argument is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc", which is true in this case, I don't need to cite some statistical study to back that up. It is that sort of argument rolled in with begging the question.

Where did I mention 'evidence'? You really are having problems with simple sentences aren't you?

No wonder then that you struggled to prove your case against me.


I'm sorry, your focus on socialism in one country(albeit without defining what you mean) led me to believe you were a Trotskyite. Now you say you are a follower of a sect even less successful than his?

I'm not even a 'Trotsksyite'.

Dear me, you do not seem to be able to get much right, do you?

Small wonder then that with geniuses like you at the helm, all the former 'socialist' states went down the pan.


Again, fallacious argument, invalid. Go ahead and put it in your sig. It will still be just as illogical.

So, you keep saying, but, and once more, your proof is still missing.

[Do you need me to re-type that slowly so you can read it more easily...?]

[scarletghoul]

Well, the alternative idea has already been refuted by history. Both ideas have been refuted by history. Socialism is impossible. We are all idealist nutcases.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


Both ideas have been refuted by history. Socialism is impossible. We are all idealist nutcases.

Well, you can draw that conclusion if you want, but, since we haven't had a socialist socielty built from below yet, that idea has not been refuted.

Nor have we had an international revolution.

When we do, and if it fails, get back to me. :)

[RHIZOMES]

Arizona:



Well, the alternative idea has already been refuted by history.

And yours hasn't... how?


I'm not even a 'Trotsksyite'.

Dear me, you do not seem to be able to get much right, do you?


Ummm, from your own site:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm


Trotskyism is thus even less successful than Maoism and Stalinism have been -- well, is
there a Trotskyist Workers' State anywhere on earth? Has there ever been?
[And I say that as a Trotskyist!]
Might wanna update it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Arizona:


And yours hasn't... how?

It's not been tried yet.

Me:


I'm not even a 'Trotsksyite'.

Me:


And I say that as a Trotskyist!

Anyone, other than short-sighted Arizona here, spot the difference?


Might wanna update it.

Why? Both are correct.

And this comment:


Trotskyism is thus even less successful than Maoism and Stalinism have been -- well, is
there a Trotskyist Workers' State anywhere on earth? Has there ever been?

Is about Dialectical Trotskyism, as the context shows.

[RHIZOMES]

It's not been tried yet.

Except it sort of has, and it didn't work. Since as Comrade Alastair said in his spot-on post that everyone ignored:


It's very easy to sit in front of a computer and write about how socialism in one country is impossible, and thus since Lenin/Stalin/Mao/whoever didn't somehow magically click their fingers and spark an instantaneous worldwide revolution that everyone took part in and nobody opposed, their attempts at leading revolution were inevitably doomed to failure and they themselves were counter-revolutionaries. The same goes for all the other dogmas of the ultra-'left'.

To expand on the bit that has been bolded, the early ideologues of the Soviet Union and the Russian Revolution were pinning their hopes on revolution in Western Europe. When that didn't happen, they focused on building it in their own country,while continuing to support revolutionaries worldwide.

Rosa, can you explain to me tactically how Permanent Revolution differs from supporting revolutionaries worldwide. Do we just as Alastair said, "magically click our fingers"? If it's not supporting communist revolutionaries abroad, then what is it? As Kayser_Soso put it, Permanent Revolution and criticisms of "socialism in one country" seems to be vague and undefined. A point you ignored in your usual obscurantist and ad hominem argumentative style.


Anyone, other than short-sighted Arizona here, spot the difference?

One ends with "ite" and the other "ist" while essentially meaning the same thing, and you're just nitpicking and being pointlessly semantic?


Why? Both are correct.

And this comment:

Is about Dialectical Trotskyism, as the context shows.

I know, I only put that quote in for the context of you declaring yourself a Trot.

[scarletghoul]

It's not been tried yet.
Yes it has, by Trotsky and all them others. What do you think all these Trot internationals are about? But their attempts failed miserably. So miserably in fact that it does seem as if no one has tried it because their attempts have never passed the stage of intellectual trotwankery, and have had barely any impact on the world. Socialism In One Country on the other hand is clearly observable throughout the world and history, despite its points of failure. In other words, SIOC has stumbled in places but has at least existed beyond the embryonic theoretical stage, whereas Trotskyite international revolution has not. It's bizzarre that people can even consider such an idea that has failed from the very start.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Arizona:


Except it sort of has,

Except, it 'sort of' hasn't. [Or, if you think otherwise, then perhaps you can tell us where it has been tried.]


To expand on the bit that has been bolded, the early ideologues of the Soviet Union and the Russian Revolution were pinning their hopes on revolution in Western Europe. When that didn't happen, they focused on building it in their own country,while continuing to support revolutionaries worldwide.

And how is this relevant?


Rosa, can you explain to me tactically how Permanent Revolution differs from supporting revolutionaries worldwide. Do we just as Alastair said, "magically click our fingers"? If it's not supporting communist revolutionaries abroad, then what is it? As Kayser_Soso put it, Permanent Revolution and criticisms of "socialism in one country" seems to be vague and undefined. A point you ignored in your usual obscurantist and ad hominem argumentative style.

Ah, yet another comrade who does not understand what 'ad hominem' is, and who confuses it with 'personal attacks/abuse'.

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

As to your substantive point: this was covered in the 'Socialism in one country' thread.


One ends with "ite" and the other "ist" while essentially meaning the same thing, and you're just nitpicking and being pointlessly semantic?

There is no such thing as a 'Trotskyite' any more than there is a 'Stalinite', a 'Maoite', or a 'Marxite', while there is such a thing as a 'socialite', but a socialite is not a socialist.

So, it's not just 'semantic'; if I were to call you a 'socialite' you would, I hope, reject the term, and would, I also hope, reprimand me for coming back with "Ah, but that's just nit picking and semantics...".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


Yes it has, by Trotsky and all them others. What do you think all these Trot internationals are about? But their attempts failed miserably. So miserably in fact that it does seem as if no one has tried it because their attempts have never passed the stage of intellectual trotwankery, and have had barely any impact on the world. Socialism In One Country on the other hand is clearly observable throughout the world and history, despite its points of failure. In other words, SIOC has stumbled in places but has at least existed beyond the embryonic theoretical stage, whereas Trotskyite international revolution has not. It's bizzarre that people can even consider such an idea that has failed from the very start.

Er, except there hasn't yet been an international revolution, or even a national one, led by a Trotskyist workers' party.

[If you think otherwise, then not even I can help you -- but I know where you might be able to get some treatment.]

By way of contrast, we have experienced at least fourteen Stalinist/Maoist states, all of which have gone down the pan, or are about to.

I just think you lot are incredibly unlucky...:rolleyes:

[RHIZOMES]

Except, it 'sort of' hasn't. [Or, if you think otherwise, then perhaps you can tell us where it has been tried.

And how is this relevant?

Ah, yet another comrade who does not understand what 'ad hominem' is, and who confuses it with 'personal attacks/abuse'.

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html (http://plover.net/%7Ebonds/adhominem.html)

As to your substantive point: this was covered in the 'Socialism in one country' thread.

There is no such thing as a 'Trotskyite' any more than there is a 'Stalinite', a 'Maoite', or a 'Marxite', while there is such a thing as a 'socialite', but a socialite is not a socialist.

So, it's not just 'semantic'; if I were to call you a 'socialite' you would, I hope, reject the term, and would, I also hope, reprimand me for coming back with "Ah, but that's just nit picking and semantics...".

For someone so into their analytic philosophy you have quite frankly the worst arguing skills on this site. This is waste of time.


Scarlet:



Er, except there hasn't yet been an international revolution, or even a national one, led by a Trotskyist workers' party.

[If you think otherwise, then not even I can help you -- but I know where you might be able to get some treatment.]

By way of contrast, we have experienced at least fourteen Stalinist/Maoist states, all of which have gone down the pan, or are about to.

I just think you lot are incredibly unlucky...:rolleyes:

Yes because a Trotskyist workers state would be 100% successful against all counterrevolution. :rolleyes:

[KC]

Edit

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Arizona:


For someone so into their analytic philosophy you have quite frankly the worst arguing skills on this site. This is waste of time.

Long on assertion; short on demonstration.

We can all assert things -- try this for size:


For an ML-er, Arizona, you are surprising supportive of US Imperialism.

Your turn...


Yes because a Trotskyist workers state would be 100% successful against all counterrevolution.

It might be, it might not.

Get back to me after either of these comes to pass, if they do.

But, one thing not in doubt: socialism in one countty has been refuted, and many times.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KC:


I don't understand why people treat "Socialism In One Country" as a coherent theoretical concept when it was nothing of the sort. In fact it wasn't coherent at all. It was simply a propaganda tool that Stalin used and changed as the situations in which he promoted it changed.

I agree, but the ML-ers here seem to think they can make sense of it.

[scarletghoul]

Er, except there hasn't yet been an international revolution, or even a national one, led by a Trotskyist workers' party.

By way of contrast, we have experienced at least fourteen Stalinist/Maoist states
Exactly, Rosa. This is my point.

The Trot-international revolution has never even begun. That's how much it fails. It's not that it hasn't been tried (it has been tried desperately for decades by poor misguided fools like you); it's just that it is so unworkable and crap that it falls down at the first hurdle.

Despite the failing points of various ML states, they have at least come into existence, unlike this crazy Trot idea. There is no way such a simultaneous international revolution could come about. It's unrealistic unmaterialist ultra-leftist fantasy, bro.

Even Anarchism has had more success than the idea you're advocating.

[scarletghoul]

I don't understand why people treat "Socialism In One Country" as a coherent theoretical concept when it was nothing of the sort. In fact it wasn't coherent at all. It was simply a propaganda tool that Stalin used and changed as the situations in which he promoted it changed.
See, we are not just treating it as a 'theoretical concept'; we are talking about a practical strategy defined by the history of class struggle in the real world. Not some abstract trotskyite theoretical plane divorced from all material reality.

That, I think, is a core problem with Trotskyites: they are all theory and no practice. This lack of practice affects their theory and creates a really crap 'movement' that never has and never will achieve any revolution. (Meanwhile, Marxist-Leninists are learning from direct revolutionary practice and constantly developing our theory in accordance with what works and what doesn't work* in the real world).

*Permanent Revolution being a prime example of what clearly doesn't work

[RHIZOMES]

Exactly, Rosa. This is my point.

The Trot-international revolution has never even begun. That's how much it fails. It's not that it hasn't been tried (it has been tried desperately for decades by poor misguided fools like you); it's just that it is so unworkable and crap that it falls down at the first hurdle.

Despite the failing points of various ML states, they have at least come into existence, unlike this crazy Trot idea. There is no way such a simultaneous international revolution could come about. It's unrealistic unmaterialist ultra-leftist fantasy, bro.

Even Anarchism has had more success than the idea you're advocating.

Yeah, and furthermore on that I don't support having a replica of "Stalinist/Maoist" states because there were obviously many flaws. I support a synthesis of what went right in those attempts at building socialism, and an analysis of what went wrong. That is how you build a successful revolutionary movement, not whining from the sidelines over nation-states that don't even exist anymore for not being exactly perfect in the muddy uncertainty that is the real world, and doing fuck all actual organizing among the working class and towards a revolution. Why is it that Maoists are so successful at winning the hearts and minds of their populace, and Trotskyists by-and-large seem to have a level of arrogance inverse to the amount of actual success they've had?

And yeah, I admire anarchists more than Trots. There are a lot of lifestylists in it, but there are a lot of admirable anarchists that orientate themselves among the working class. In the UK from what I can understand the Trotskyist sects tend to be among the middle-class student and public sector workers (while these are all good bases to have, the problem becomes when you only orientate yourselves towards these groups), while a lot of the anarchists have been doing working class community organizing and so on. And they've definitely taken the initiative in Greece.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


Exactly, Rosa. This is my point.

The Trot-international revolution has never even begun. That's how much it fails. It's not that it hasn't been tried (it has been tried desperately for decades by poor misguided fools like you); it's just that it is so unworkable and crap that it falls down at the first hurdle.

Once more, maybe so, maybe not -- but there is nothing speculative about the multiple failures of Stalinism and Maoism


Despite the failing points of various ML states, they have at least come into existence, unlike this crazy Trot idea. There is no way such a simultaneous international revolution could come about. It's unrealistic unmaterialist ultra-leftist fantasy, bro.

And they soon went down the pan.


Even Anarchism has had more success than the idea you're advocating.

Like, where?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


Trotskyites

You Maoites are all the same...:rolleyes:

[scarletghoul]

Yeah, and furthermore on that I don't support having a replica of "Stalinist/Maoist" states because there were obviously many flaws. I support a synthesize of what went right in those attempts at building socialism, and an analysis of what went wrong. That is how you build a successful revolutionary movement, not whining from the sidelines over nation-states that don't even exist anymore for not being exactly perfect in the muddy uncertainty that is the real world, and doing fuck all actual organizing among the working class and towards a revolution. Why is it that Maoists are so successful at winning the hearts and minds of their populace, and Trotskyists by-and-large seem to have a level of arrogance inverse to the amount of actual success they've had?

And yeah, I admire anarchists more than Trots. There are a lot of lifestylists in it, but there are a lot of admirable anarchists that orientate themselves among the working class. In the UK from what I can understand the Trotskyist sects tend to be among the middle-class student and public sector workers (while these are all good bases to have, the problem becomes when you only orientate yourselves towards these groups), while a lot of the anarchists have been doing working class community organizing and so on. And they've definitely taken the initiative in Greece.Yeah this is right. My main beef with Anarchists is that they are all practice with not enough theoretical development. Trots are the opposite. The Maoist movement however is constantly engaged in practical and theoretical activity (which are defined by eachother), which is the reason for its rising success. Trotskyism is stale and Anarchism is too raw, whereas Maoism is a deliciously prepared feast of succulent chicken, seasoned yet fresh.

I strongly advise comrades of all tendencies to check out http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_16.htm

Once more, maybe so, maybe not -- but there is nothing speculative about the multiple failures of Stalinism and MaoismThe differance is, Trots don't seem to be able to comprehend the failure of their ideology, while MLs are constantly analysing their failures and correcting them, to develop a more and more successful theory/practice. Another differance of course is that Trotskyism has a 100% fail rate and ML has quite a few successes

Like, where? Spain, Ukraine, Shinmin, Greece, etc, you know, all the places where Anarchism constitutes a significant movement.

[KC]

Edit

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


Spain, Ukraine, Shinmin, Greece, etc, you know, all the places where Anarchism constitutes a significant movement.

And yet, no successful revolution.


The differance is, Trots don't seem to be able to comprehend the failure of their ideology, while MLs are constantly analysing their failures and correcting them, to develop a more and more successful theory/practice. Another differance of course is that Trotskyism has a 100% fail rate and ML has quite a few successes

But I could write this too:


The differance is, ML-ers don't seem to be able to comprehend the failure of their ideology, while us genuine Marxists are constantly analysing their failures and correcting them, to develop a more and more successful theory/practice. Another differance of course is that ML has a 100% fail rate and no successes

So, we can speculate all day long, and exchange insults until we both grow older and wiser, but one thing that is not in any doubt is that you ML-ers have presided over the catastrophic failure of at least fourteen 'socialist' states.

Are you just unlucky?

Or, hasn't practice refuted your 'theory'?

[RHIZOMES]

LOL I'm sure you have so much more "practice" than me. :rolleyes:

Seriously, get your head out of your ass. You're borderline delusional. You can't even address my very valid point. What does that say about your beliefs?

Umm he's talking about the movement as a whole, not himself individually. Also I don't know how relevant this is to you, as I don't know you personally, but hyper-activism =/= successful practice.


And yet, no successful revolution.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


But I could write this too:

So, we can speculate all day long, and exchange insults until we both grow older and wiser, but one thing that is not in any doubt is that you ML-ers have presided over the catastrophic failure of at least fourteen 'socialist' states.

Are you just unlucky?

Or, hasn't practice refuted your 'theory'?

Rosa you have a complete lack of reading comprehension. MLs are not looking to replicate the failures of previous socialist states, except the ultra-dogmatic Stalin-worshipping ones who won't admit that Stalin ever made a single tiny mistake in his entire rule. For example, the Nepalese Maoists have written very long critiques (about the length of your essays except with much more substance) of the failures of the Chinese and Russian models of socialism including the bureaucratic element, but also noted the successes and the progress that was made. That is how you create a revolutionary movement, not by being some armchair academic theory wonk such as yourself who is completely 110% sure their position is right despite it never being tested in practice and succeeding (and no Rosa, despite your constant completely baseless claims that it hasn't been tried, "Permanent Revolution" HAS been tried. The Bolsheviks waited for a more advanced nation such as Germany to have a revolution. When that failed they were forced to be content with the territory they had, while funding revolutionary movements abroad).

We are all human beings based in the real world, in the real world where there a major challenges and obstacles (ideological, military, state, etc) in the way of constructing socialism. Capitalism won (this time). Your view on things is completely divorced from reality or any materialist analysis. Why would a USSR with Trotsky winning and trying to implement all his "theories" actually have worked? Do you idiots account for real-life variables at all? Wait don't answer, I already know it: You don't.

This is the last I'm responding to you because arguing with someone who continues to make claims without backing them up and launching it ad homine--I mean "personal attacks" (:rolleyes:) and nitpicking to death is not a discussion I'm really all that interested in having. Although nitpicking isn't really something to be surprised about from a Trotskyite such as yourself. Hopefully this post will at least serve as a guide for newer comrades to not get swindled into your psuedo-revolutionary rhetoric.

Ciao.

[KC]

Edit

[RHIZOMES]

But that of course goes hand in hand with the lifestylism of "revolutionary politics," which also includes a blind subservience to whichever ideology your party/organization/friends adhere to. Which is why I find the dogmatism of most "revolutionary leftists" appalling.

My party doesn't adhere specifically to Marxism-Leninism (although for the sake of honesty we do support the Nepalese Maoists, including the Trotskyists of our party). I came to these conclusions purely from my own observations. Most of my real-life far left friends are Trotskyists and anarchists and when it comes to this board I have friends from all the tendencies.

[KC]

Edit

[RHIZOMES]

Good for you?

Just saying that criticism doesn't really apply to me at all...

[KC]

Edit

[RHIZOMES]

I never said it did.

Okay then.

[BobKKKindle$]

All these terms like 'permanent revolution' etc that Trotskyists like to pretend are a coherent set of ideas actually just boil down to the hope that revolution will happen simultaneously all across the worldThere is not a single Trotskyist who thinks that revolution can or must happen at the same time in every single country around the world and I'm actually quite disappointed that you of all people CA have tried to mischaracterize Trotsky's ideas in this way, because you've always proven yourself quite willing to have honest debates in the past - this is the kind of thing I expect from a lot of Stalinists on this board, but not you. The theory of permanent revolution simply acknowledges (amongst other things) that a revolution will ultimately not be able to survive unless it spreads throughout the world, because any country that finds itself isolated and surrounded by hostile states will inevitably be forced to build up its productive apparatus in order to be able to defend itself against the threat of invasion - and this pressure to develop the productive forces can only ever result in workers being subject to high levels of exploitation in the workplace, which in turn requires the existence of a coercive state and workers being deprived of their rights, in order to prevent them from challenging their exploitation. Stalin inadvertently recognized this by saying that the imperialist states would crush the USSR unless she caught up with them. The word "ultimately" is important here because the process of bureaucratic degeneration that led to Soviet Russia being transformed into a state capitalist regime happened over a long period of time (more than a decade, in fact) and not all at once, and there were multiple points in time after the initial revolutionary wave of 1917-1920 when revolution was possible in various countries around the world - for example, China in 1927 - and the success of any of these revolutions would have reversed the symptoms of bureaucracy in the USSR and given a further impetus to revolution in other countries.


It doesn't represent a chance to change the worldI agree, only the working class can change the world. You don't believe this of course, because you think that China was socialist after 1949, despite the working class not having played any significant role in the CPC's victory.

I've also no doubt that there are lots of Maoist organizations with support in countries like India. However, the fact that an organization has lots of support doesn't tell us much about it. Rather, we have to look at who it get its support from, and what its political objectives are.


Why would a USSR with Trotsky winning and trying to implement all his "theories" actually have worked?To me this seems a bit of a strange thing to say - it was a historical impossibility for Trotsky to become the leader of the USSR (whatever that means) from the mid-1920s because Trotsky represented social forces which were being undermined and overpowered by other forces as a result of the failure of the revolution to spread. In the same way, Stalin becoming the leader of the USSR in the 1920s had nothing to do with his personal characteristics and everything to do with his role as a representative of a social stratum who were gaining in power and importance due to the physical disintegration of the working class and the pressures of international competition - and at no point can the Soviet Union be accurately described as his personal fiefdom, because Stalin was only ever the representative of a class, with his freedom of action always being limited by the interests of the class of which he was a part.


MLs are not looking to replicate the failures of previous socialist state Are you or anyone else going to respond to my points in thread and others about why the PRC was not socialist? Would you care to offer your personal view on why you think the PRC was socialist, and what led it to stop being socialist? if you want to respond to me, you can start with the posts on the first page of this thread, and then go on to this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/did-china-have-t124075/index.html) thread, if you like.

[Saorsa]

Perhaps I am being unfair. And it is a bit unfair to make out that all Trotskyists are like Rosa. But I just get really pissed off at the deterministic line that because the revolution of 1917 or whenever failed to rapidly spread internationally it was inevitable that the USSR degenerated. I have more faith in the ability of workers and peasants to hold out even in a backward, isolated country than that. It's defeatist and I do believe that Trotskyism is based on some fundamentally false political points - if you think that the revolution's defeat was inevitable because the USSR ended up isolated, the logical conclusion is that the only way for a revolution to survive is if it spreads so rapidly as to be almost simultaneous, something that is very, very unlikely.

But meh, perhaps I should be a bit more civil about it. Your politics may be flawed but for the most part you guys are on the right side of the barricades.


To me this seems a bit of a strange thing to say - it was a historical impossibility for Trotsky to become the leader of the USSR (whatever that means) from the mid-1920s because Trotsky represented social forces which were being undermined and overpowered by other forces as a result of the failure of the revolution to spread.

Stuff like this is typical of the determinism inherent in a lot of Trotskyist thought. Trotsky was defeated in a line struggle in the CP, his views rejected by the majority of party members and revolutionary people in the Soviet Union. It was not because of the destruction of the working class - it was because people thought that his policy of escalating confrontation with the capitalist countries, provoking a war the USSR could not win, was wrong.

I don't buy into the all too common idea that just because I oppose Trotsky and his line I have to automatically and enthusiastically uphold Stalin and the USSR under his leadership, but the fact of the matter is that Trotsky's ideas would have been suicidal for the Soviet Union and that is why they were rejected.


You don't believe this of course, because you think that China was socialist after 1949, despite the working class not having played any significant role in the CPC's victory.

Socialism is the period of transition between capitalism and communism. And yes, I believe that under Mao's leadership China was on a revolutionary path leading away from feudalism and capitalism. I don't believe it achieved socialism conclusively, and neither did Mao or any Maoists.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrade Alastair:


Perhaps I am being unfair. And it is a bit unfair to make out that all Trotskyists are like Rosa.

Where on earth did you get the idea that I believe that "revolution will happen simultaneously all across the world"?

In fact, I agree with Bobk, as I have argued many times, most recently here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-one-country-t123138/index7.html


But I just get really pissed off at the deterministic line that because the revolution of 1917 or whenever failed to rapidly spread internationally it was inevitable that the USSR degenerated. I have more faith in the ability of workers and peasants to hold out even in a backward, isolated country than that. It's defeatist and I do believe that Trotskyism is based on some fundamentally false political points - if you think that the revolution's defeat was inevitable because the USSR ended up isolated, the logical conclusion is that the only way for a revolution to survive is if it spreads so rapidly as to be almost simultaneous, something that is very, very unlikely.

Well, if we ignore for the moment the "mutual destruction of the contending" classes, it was inevitable -- unless, of course, you believe in the 'triumph of the will', and that by just wishing it be otherwise, you can overcome the material forces ranged against you (which would make you an idealist).

On that basis, you might as well argue that capitalism will always overcome its crises if only people just believe it can, and try harder.

--------------------------

Added on edit: May I add that the word "inevitable" is in no way connected with determinism.

[Kayser_Soso]

The theory of permanent revolution simply acknowledges (amongst other things) that a revolution will ultimately not be able to survive unless it spreads throughout the world, because any country that finds itself isolated and surrounded by hostile states will inevitably be forced to build up its productive apparatus in order to be able to defend itself against the threat of invasion - and this pressure to develop the productive forces can only ever result in workers being subject to high levels of exploitation in the workplace, which in turn requires the existence of a coercive state and workers being deprived of their rights, in order to prevent them from challenging their exploitation. Stalin inadvertently recognized this by saying that the imperialist states would crush the USSR unless she caught up with them. The word "ultimately" is important here because the process of bureaucratic degeneration that led to Soviet Russia being transformed into a state capitalist regime happened over a long period of time (more than a decade, in fact) and not all at once, and there were multiple points in time after the initial revolutionary wave of 1917-1920 when revolution was possible in various countries around the world - for example, China in 1927 - and the success of any of these revolutions would have reversed the symptoms of bureaucracy in the USSR and given a further impetus to revolution in other countries.


The problem with this is that it does necessarily require simultaneous revolution because obviously capitalist powers, which are all linked today by various military alliances, will immediately attempt to intervene any time there is a revolution anywhere, if not the threat of a revolution. Moreover, it is not necessary to spread the revolution to a majority of countries in the world, it is only necessary to shift the balance of military and economic power so that the capitalists are on the defensive.

Let us also not forget that the US devotes a great deal of its budget to military expenditures without creating noticeable deprivations of rights, at least not due to this specific cause.

[BobKKKindle$]

I have more faith in the ability of workers and peasants to hold out even in a backward, isolated country than that.It depends on what you mean by "hold out" I suppose. We should be able to agree that after the civil war Soviet Russia faced an urgent need to build up an economy of sufficient strength so as to enable her to defend herself against external (primarily military) threats, because there was no shortage of countries and other political forces like the exile communities seeking to undermine Russia by any means possible and restore some kind of Tsarist or anti-Soviet government. I would actually argue that this external pressure to develop the productive forces wasn't the only factor which led to the rise of a bureaucracy in Russia and that the effects of the civil war were also instrumental in allowing bureaucratic forces within the party and state to take power, not least because of the effects that the civil war had on the capacity of the Soviets to govern, as well as the impact of the Bolsheviks being made to turn to former Tsarist officials, but I know you won't agree with me about the role of the civil war so for now we can just concentrate on Russia's international position once the civil war had come to an end. In order to understand the impact that Russia's international situation had on the relationship between the working class and the state we need to turn to Marx. Marx's analysis of political economy and the course of history indicates that the source of all value is labour and that in order to have a surplus capable of supporting expansion of the productive forces or the privileges of a parasitic class (this expansion being a central feature of human history) it is necessary to pay producers less than the value of what they produce - regardless of whether this process takes the form of paying workers wages as under capitalism or taking produce away from peasants as under feudalism. In the Russian context this meant that the building-up of an economy could only occur through increasing the exploitation of the working class, i.e. the suppression of consumption. This suggests that there was no way the Soviet state could have reconciled the necessary objective of accumulation with the rights that workers had won as a result of taking power, the gains won by trade unions in particular, and so the "best" outcome after the failure of the revolutionary wave would have been a situation of voluntary self-exploitation, whereby workers would have voluntarily tolerated very low levels of consumption in order to build up the economy of the territory under their control. In reality however even this kind of outcome was not possible, not only because of the other outcomes of the civil war but also because the constraints that were put on worker consumption required a regulatory bureaucracy capable of keeping consumption at a low level and defeating threats from the working class to the goal of accumulation. It is for this reason that Trotsky said:

"The basis of bureaucratic rule is the poverty of society in objects of consumption, with the resulting struggle of each against all. When there is enough goods in a store the purchasers can come whenever they want to. When there is little goods the purchasers are compelled to stand in line. When the lines are very long, it is necessary to appoint a policeman to keep order. Such is the starting-point of the power of the Soviet bureaucracy. It knows’ who is to get something and who has to wait."

I assume we can agree that there was a need for the Soviet Union to accumulate. I hope we can also agree that this required the repression of working class consumption. So I ask you - how was this possible without also attacking the democratic rights of the working class, without power passing into the hands of a bureaucracy, functioning, as Cliff put it, when describing Trotsky's position, as a gendarme who appears in the process of distribution?


Stuff like this is typical of the determinism inherent in a lot of Trotskyist thought.I am also wary of using words like "inevitable" - although I find your rejection of what you see as deterministic views ironic in light of Althusser's reputation as a champion of Maoism. However, I think it's important to point put that a key feature of Marxism and other kinds of radical analysis which draw inspiration from Marxism is the recognition that individuals cannot be considered in the abstract, and that both individuals and groups are always limited in terms of their freedom of action by the material conditions in which they find themselves. It is this simple recognition that underpins Marx's theory of the state, as expressed in the 18th Brumaire, for example, and I don't think recognizing that material conditions do limit outcomes is determinist.

In connection with this, it's noteworthy that Marx argues that individual capitalists invest in physical capital not because they are greedy but because if they failed to do this they would eventually be sucked into the ranks of the proletariat and lose their status as capitalists, as a result of competition from rival capitals. In fact there are some Marxists like Levine and Wright who argue that this dynamic of competition between rival sections of the ruling class is what lies behind the development of the forces of the production as a historic tendency, that is, in all class societies, and not any inherent capacity for reason and self-improvement on the part of humanity, as argued by Cohen. The pressure on individual capitalists to invest is a further example of Marxism acknowledging the constraints that capitalism imposes on human action and is also significant as a "miniature" version of international politics and what happened to Russia.


Trotsky was defeated in a line struggle in the CP, his views rejected by the majority of party members and revolutionary people in the Soviet UnionIt was a line struggle in the sense that it was a clash of ideological perspectives, but I don't think you can abstract this line struggle from the prevailing conditions and pretend that Trotsky and Stalin were just two individuals who were "floating in the air", so to speak, without any connection to broader social forces. I think you'd also be hard-pressed to show that the civil war had no impact on the composition of the party, or the ideological level of the working class.


And yes, I believe that under Mao's leadership China was on a revolutionary path leading away from feudalism and capitalism.I know you think this. What I'm interested in your opinion on is which class was the ruling class in Maoist China - which is very similar to my previous (implied) question of whether you think it is possible for socialism to come into being through anything other than the struggles of the working class. How could the working class have been the ruling class - which I assume you think was the case - when the working class played almost no role in the 1949 revolution and after that date had no institutional means to enforce its interests, either in individual workplaces, or society as a whole?

I'd also be interested in your views on what led the working class to cease being the ruling class in China - if indeed that has happened, in your view.


The problem with this is that it does necessarily require simultaneous revolution because obviously capitalist powers, which are all linked today by various military alliances, will immediately attempt to intervene any time there is a revolution anywhereWhich is why a country which finds itself isolated will face such intense pressures to accumulate, with all of the social and political consequences that flow from that.

[Paul Cockshott]

Quote:
Which is why in revolutionary China the ruling ideas were those of Marxism-Leninism, equality for women, minorities and all the oppressed, and popular democracy. China was ruled by the masses.
Not so, otherwise Mao and his henchment would not have tried to build socialism in one country, nor would they have ignored this comment of Marx's:

Quote:
The emancipation of the working class must be an act of the workers themselves
Not the red army.


The army did not form of agricultural co-operatives or form the communes, it was the peasants in the countryside that did this. Remember that is the issue that I asked you to address. Once it comes down to making a concrete criticism of these you make an inaccurate one alledging it was done by the army.

Or are you making a more general pacifist point that it is wrong for a revolutionary movement to have an army?

[BobKKKindle$]

The army did not form of agricultural co-operatives or form the communes, it was the peasants in the countryside that did this

As I've shown elsewhere and pointed out to you, the peasants were also stopped from pursuing radical action against landowners by the CPC during the civil war in Hubei and Hunan in particular and the formation of things like cooperatives was only allowed to take place once the CPC had established itself. Here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/chinese-revolution-essentially-t119849/index.html?t=119849).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Paul:


Or are you making a more general pacifist point that it is wrong for a revolutionary movement to have an army?

Certainly not; if such an army is under the control of workers' soviets (or whatever they are called), and is composed of workers, then the emancipation of the working class wlill be an act of the workers themselves, as Marx indicated it should.

This was not the case in China in 1949.

Recall, I'm not denying that the 1949 revolution was a revolution (how could I possibly do that?), just questioning its class content, and the nature of the state that finally emerged as a result.

[Sendo]

For those who feel that the PRC was never socialist, I wonder what they think of what happened after Mao and Hua, with the rise of Deng Xiaoping, what they think of the sweatshops in Beijing today. Did nothing happen? Going back a little further, were no workers empowered by the Cultural Revolution?

A society with vastly eroded public services, extraterrioriality (again!), rampant destruction of its own countryside and riverside (the disastrous dam projects/living conditions, and little political outlet (even for my Marxist former prof who was a registered CPC member from China). I fail to understand how this society is like the one I read about in Hinton's "Fanshen", and in other Monthly Review Press books, some of which written by Chinese ex-pats.

Trotskyists, to me, are too concerned with creating a perfect model of a situation and would rather wait 'til every working person is a formal wage-slave in some coal-spewing mega-factory from 1917 Petrograd before considering revolution.

EDIT: Sorry to just jump in. I know there's an intense discussion between a few major contributors. I'm just not sure how to participate other than clumsily shoehorn a post in.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sendo:


For those who feel that the PRC was never socialist, I wonder what they think of what happened after Mao and Hua, with the rise of Deng Xiaoping, what they think of the sweatshops in Beijing today. Did nothing happen? Going back a little further, were no workers empowered by the Cultural Revolution?

Plainly this is a regression from state capitalism under Mao to a more free market capitalism now.


Trotskyists, to me, are too concerned with creating a perfect model of a situation and would rather wait 'til every working person is a formal wage-slave in some coal-spewing mega-factory from 1917 Petrograd before considering revolution.

Not so; as Bobk has explained, state captalist societies were forced to extract surplus value from their workforce under extreme conditions, in order to catch up with the west. This is not a search for 'perfect conditions' but an application of basic historical materialism.

[BobKKKindle$]

Going back a little further, were no workers empowered by the Cultural Revolution?Workers were empowered during the Cultural Revolution, but only by taking action against the state, and their gains were eventually attacked by Mao and his supporters due to the challenge they posed to the goal of accumulation as well as the political and economic privileges of the ruling bureaucracy. A particular example of this was the regime's attacks on the wind of economism towards the end of 1966 as well as the shutting-down of the Shanghai People's Commune in early 1967 but the challenges posed by the working class was so serious and intense, especially when they assumed the form of an ideological critique like the document 'Whither China?', that the regime eventually resorted to violence during the latter half of 1967 and the whole of 1968, by calling in the PLA, and banning radical organizations. I actually wrote a bit about this in relation to the revolutionary committees in one of my first posts in this thread but if you want a fuller explanation then you might be interested in an essay I wrote recently, here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotskyist-analysis-cultural-t123025/index.html?t=123025&highlight=cultural+revolution) and here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotskyist-analysis-cultural-t123026/index.html?t=123026&highlight=cultural+revolution) - although that is just a draft version for something I eventually submitted as an academic work.

There have been changes since the Mao period, of course, but the defeat of the Gang of Four certainly didn't mark any fundamental changes in the nature of Chinese society, and the state of China today simply represents the fulfillment of the 1949 revolution, which had as its central aim the development of China's productive forces, in order to obtain national independence.


wait 'til every working person is a formal wage-slave in some coal-spewing mega-factory from 1917 Petrograd before considering revolution.Not so, Trotsky always argued that what influences the possibility of revolution is not the relative size of the working class but the correlation of political forces, in particular the presence or absence of revolutionary leadership. This is one of the conclusions of his theory of permanent revolution. The notion that a country has to undergo a lengthy period of capitalist development before socialism or a socialist revolution can be possible is fundamentally a Stalinist notion - see Mao's essay 'On New Democracy' for an honest recognition of this.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

They think Mao's China is a deformed workers' state, even though the working class took no significant part in the revolution, as Bobk notes, and, although they are the 'ruling class' they are oppressed and exploited -- work that one out! They classify Mao's regime as a form of 'Proletrarian Bonapartism'!, and use dialectics to resolve this 'contradiction'-- just as other Dialectical Marxists use dialectics to refute it.

http://www.marxist.com/TUT/TUT4-I.html

http://www.marxist.com/TUT/TUT4-1.html

[These look the same but they lead to different pages.]

Debunked here:

http://www.marxists.de/trotism/callinicos/3-2_orthodox.htm

http://www.marxists.de/china/hore/index.htm

http://www.marxists.de/statecap/binns/statecap.htm

And there are no 'Cliffites' here.

Do you call the ones you extoll here 'Woodites'?

[Paul Cockshott]

So why, then, did you recommend Impending Catastrophe and not Trotsky's TP? Both works employ Krichevskii's method of economic-to-political agitation, and the Comintern's further development of transitory action platforms also followed Krichevskii's approach (as noted by comrade Rakunin). This development even affected the culmination of the Comintern's programmatic thinking, as transcribed by Mike Macnair:

Programme of the Communist International (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/6th-congress/index.htm)
Historically I was more influenced by the Lenin article than the Trotsky one, the Lenin one seemed a paradigmatic example of conjunctural analysis and policy. I will not go into the criticism I had of the Trotsky article when I studied it in the 70s until I can dig out the critique I wrote then.

[Paul Cockshott]

As I've shown elsewhere and pointed out to you, the peasants were also stopped from pursuing radical action against landowners by the CPC during the civil war in Hubei and Hunan in particular and the formation of things like cooperatives was only allowed to take place once the CPC had established itself. Here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/chinese-revolution-essentially-t119849/index.html?t=119849).

This is the first concrete point you or Rosa have made about policy. You are saying that the formation of cooperatives should have been encouraged earlier?

But presumably when it was encouraged in the 50s, you would agree that it was progressive?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Socialite-as-Was:


I'd rather call them 'sane people'. That aside, there seems to be clear divide among Trotskyists themselves about the nature of Maoist China (not to mention other proletarian struggles around the world) and perhaps we should not take the Cliffite view (which seems to be disproportionately represented here on revleft) as the only Trotskyist view on such important matters.

I hope you don't mind me calling you 'Socialite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialite)'? After all, according to your odd use of language, a socialist the same as a socialite.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Socialite:


Rosa and BobK, you have convinced me that Cliffites indeed belong to the lunatic fringe of the leftist -and especially the Trotskyist- movement. Trotsky must be rolling in his grave.

Shouldn't that be "Leftite"?

Or have you grown out of that phase?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Socialite:


I didn't realize what you were on about till now. Does Cliffist sound better?

So, you have grown out of it.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[scarletghoul]

Wow Rosa ... These posts are pathetic and irrelevent, even for you, I personally think you should be given an infraction for spamming.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


Wow Rosa ... These posts are pathetic and irrelevent, even for you, I personally think you should be given an infraction for spamming.

If so, others deserve one, too -- like Socialite. And you have done your own fair share, as well.

[scarletghoul]

My posts and the posts of everyone else in this thread so far have at least been about some kind of political discussion. You're just destroying the discussion with your inflamed butthurt about some suffix that is really not important at all. Even less important than dialectics.

[BobKKKindle$]

This is the first concrete point you or Rosa have made about policy. You are saying that the formation of cooperatives should have been encouraged earlier?Asking whether the policy of encouraging cooperatives in China was progressive is a bit like asking me whether I think Obama's healthcare policy is progressive - in both cases you're asking my opinion on a policy executed by a bourgeois government, in a capitalist society. The agrarian policy of China was neither progressive nor reactionary, it was simply a way of raising agricultural output so that more producers could move from the countryside to the urban areas and become part of the industrial workforce, and it also provided the Chinese government with a way of paying for purchases of machinery and raw materials from other countries. It was, therefore, consistent with the regime's orientation towards accumulation and the development of the productive forces, and had nothing to do with the emancipation of the working class. You seem to be labouring under the delusion that China's government is/was socialist or that it is possible for a society to become socialist if a bourgeois government introduces the right policies, whereas, as Marxists, we recognize that all states are constrained in the way they act by the class interests they represent, and that socialism can only come about as the result of a working-class revolution. A revolution of this type did not happen in China.


China is quite complexThis seems to be a convenient way of getting out of any discussion - just say that the topic is too complicated. I've asked several times now for someone to explain what made/makes China socialist and what led to China ceasing to be socialist, and thus far noone has given me an answer.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Historically I was more influenced by the Lenin article than the Trotsky one, the Lenin one seemed a paradigmatic example of conjunctural analysis and policy. I will not go into the criticism I had of the Trotsky article when I studied it in the 70s until I can dig out the critique I wrote then.

Fair enough. To be fair, the RSDLP(B) did have a formal program while Lenin wrote this, and the affiliated Communist parties had educative programs of their own while the International resorted to agitational platforms a la Boris Krichevskii. On the other hand, the parties of the emerging Fourth International did not, thus making the exact same mistake Krichevskii did.

[Sendo]

I think the organization industrial proletariat is the most important *single* thing to the health of socialism (but certainly not the only).

Yet I still feel that China's revolution was still socialist in character, though the transformation was never completed. Even if the KMT smashed the organs of labor the workers were still there in the cities and they welcomed the PRC. The violent rebellions against the ruling classes were common under KMT or Japanese-occupied areas but not a feature of China after the revolution. rural workers did exist and I think the Maoist line did a very good job with redistribution and critique and reformulation of theory to fit the people's needs. The semi-peasantry posed problems for classification, so at first there was simple classification by wealth, then that got modified to looking at whether people earned their share by their own hands or employed hands. Communal work teams got set up. Eventually they tried full collectivization when they weren't ready for it (revolutionary consciousness not full, desperation to industrialize, hostile forces outside, covert reactionaries, careerist bureaucrats).

As for the idea that free market China is the fulfillment of the 1949 movement to bring industry to China in order be independent.....many many Communist cadres participated for that reason, but I wouldn't say Mao, his supporters, or the peasants or the workers fought for that. The Cultural Revolution tried to bring people's consciousness up with affirmative action in the theater and more support for commoner plays (esp with Communist themes). I don't think a failure to create a communist society is the same as state capitalism. China used to concern its industry with domestic-use production and wanted to build up the public infrastructure and make development more even than today.

I find it hard to write it all of as "State capitalism". It may carry the aspects of capitalist exploitation (as part of the national plans for modernization and extracting surplus) but the goals were different from capitalism (compare industrialization goals to the goals of current US capitalists: to make a net zero growth in wealth while accumulating a greater share to themselves), and there wasn't the same free reign that capitalist owners have today over the companies.

And although public services dont make a coutnry socialist, they are symptomatic to socialism. If everything was as simple as state capitalism, then there would be some sort of profit motive behind everything. I'm not sure how publicly funded arts programs could be seen as a politician-owned and run profit-making business monopoly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sendo:


I find it hard to write it all of as "State capitalism". It may carry the aspects of capitalist exploitation (as part of the national plans for modernization and extracting surplus) but the goals were different from capitalism (compare industrialization goals to the goals of current US capitalists: to make a net zero growth in wealth while accumulating a greater share to themselves), and there wasn't the same free reign that capitalist owners have today over the companies.

Capitalism has no goals since it is not a human being. Capitalists, on the other hand, have as one of their main goals the exploitation of their workforce, in order to increase the surplus extracted. In 'free market' capitalism this is driven by competition and the search for profit. In state capitalism it is driven by competiton with imperialist states (military, etc.). As Bobk argued, this picture fits the USSR from the late 1920s onward, and China from the 1950s until soon after Mao died.

Both failed, and had to revert to the 'free market' form.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


My posts and the posts of everyone else in this thread so far have at least been about some kind of political discussion. You're just destroying the discussion with your inflamed butthurt about some suffix that is really not important at all. Even less important than dialectics.

In this thread, until Socialite began to troll -- I just took the p*ss out of him in response -- I was in fact concerned to destroy your illusions in Maoism. If you can't handle that, tough.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

There are far too many people on this site typical of everything that is wrong with the Western 'left' today. People who treat Marxism as an abstract theoretical hobby, activism as a pathway into a fun debating circle in which the object is to prove your opponent wrong, to prove that you know Marxism better than they do. It's about scoring points to them, and criticising the percieved failings of others. It's about reading books, finding quotes and proving yourself to be more well read than someone else. Marxism becomes a gigantic pissing contest.

To most Maoists in the world today, such as the comrades in Nepal, the Philippines, India and elsewhere, the problems they're grappling with are how to actually concretely defeat the reactionary state forces, make revolution and stay alive in the process of doing so. This is how the Maoism of the 21st century has been synthesised, from the RL experience of workers and peasants in the poorest parts of the world struggling against oppression. It's a profoundly liberatory, profoundly democratic and profoundly revolutionary set of ideas. And these ideas work - the various Maoist and Maoist-inspired mass movements around the world are proof of that.

It's very easy to sit in front of a computer and write about how socialism in one country is impossible, and thus since Lenin/Stalin/Mao/whoever didn't somehow magically click their fingers and spark an instantaneous worldwide revolution that everyone took part in and nobody opposed, their attempts at leading revolution were inevitably doomed to failure and they themselves were counter-revolutionaries. The same goes for all the other dogmas of the ultra-'left'.

Communist ideas need to be taken out of the realms of pure, abstract theory (where they are safe and can be comfortably defended) and thrown into the dirtiness, unpredictability and complexity of the real world. They need to be discussed and synthesised by mass movements of workers, peasants and progressive people seeking to change the world. And having been tested in practice, they can then be cautiously and tentatively upheld as 'correct'.

But no, to most of the people on this site and in the various communist sects of the West it's more important that an idea closely matches a selection of Marx quotes, or doesn't contradict a polemic written by Trotsky.

I think we have a hell of a lot to learn from the Maoist movements in the world today. And the day's not far off when people are going to be forced to engage with this new, dynamic brand of Maoism, whether they like it or not. Most Western 'revolutionaries' will just dismiss it, go home and leaf through their aging Marxist tomes, nodding their heads every time they read a line that reinforces their prejudices and dogmas. But I'm hopeful that some will be less arrogant, and take a more humble approach to the successes and achievements of actual revolutions, actual breakthroughs in a world mostly devoid of socialist success stories.

In particular a new generation of young activists who haven't grown up locked into the Trotsky/Stalin paradigm and who haven't wasted years of activism in pointless sectarianism over long dead leaders of now non-existent nationstates. These people will be the ones who will engage with and try to learn from the experience of Maoist revolution in the Third World, and who will actually practice internationalism in regard to it, rather than condemning from afar and assuming the kind of arrogant, superior attitude so typical of the over-intellectualised academic leftist.

Every time a new wave of revolution sweeps the world, there's a hell of a lot of 'socialists' who get left behind. In 1917 probably the majority of the world's 'socialists' drifted away into irrelevancy as a new, dynamic set of ideas and concrete practices exploded onto the world stage, forcing everyone to engage with it. The same thing happened in the 60s and 70s as new communist groups and currents emerged across the world.

I think we're about to see something similar in the next wee while. The Nepali Maoists are knocking on the doors of Singha Durbar, the People's War in India is spreading rapidly throughout the country, the Phillipinos defy every attempt by the government to crush them and continue to spread their influence... The international communist movement is going to be repolarised, and a lot of it's current members will be left by the wayside.

I can't wait.

I'm sorry, but what material differences exist now, between India, the Philippines and Nepal, and China, Laos, and Vietnam 50 years ago?

If you can't find any of significance, I'm inclined to say that we've seen it all before.

[Paul Cockshott]

Asking whether the policy of encouraging cooperatives in China was progressive is a bit like asking me whether I think Obama's healthcare policy is progressive - in both cases you're asking my opinion on a policy executed by a bourgeois government, in a capitalist society.


Even were that true in China, which I dispute, so what!

It is perfectly legitimate to ask if a given policy carried out in a capitalist state is progressive.
I would unhesitatingly say that 19th century UK legislation to limit the working day was progressive. Similarly, the introduction of the National
Health Service in the UK was a progressive step which served the interests of the working class and which should be defended against reactionary attempts to replace it by a system based on payment for treatment.







The agrarian policy of China was neither progressive nor reactionary, it was simply a way of raising agricultural output so that more producers could move from the countryside to the urban areas and become part of the industrial workforce,


So raising food production is now a suspect activity?

Presumably the sharp rise in life expectancy concomitant on higher food production and its more equitable distribution was not progressive either?

Is not the movement of the population from agriculture to industry a progressive step?
But one should bear in mind that one of the innovations of the maoist tendancy among Chinese socialists was the way they tried to develop the rural economy in an integrated way, and not simply to shift as many people as possible into
the cities.



and it also provided the Chinese government with a way of paying for purchases of machinery and raw materials from other countries. It was, therefore, consistent with the regime's orientation towards accumulation and the development of the productive forces, and had nothing to do with the emancipation of the working class.

So the development of the productive forces has nothing to do
with the emancipation of the working class from material poverty?

How could the working people of China possibly develop a decent condition of life without a higher productivity of labour?

But again, the distinctive feature of the Maoist tendency among Chinese socialists is the way they argued against the 'productive forces in command' line, and put the emphasis on transforming relations of production. This contrasted with the more orthodox Soviet Style model of development favoured by other wings of the movement.


You seem to be labouring under the delusion that China's government is/was socialist or that it is possible for a society to become socialist if a bourgeois government introduces the right policies, whereas, as Marxists, we recognize that all states are constrained in the way they act by the class interests they represent, and that socialism can only come about as the result of a working-class revolution. A revolution of this type did not happen in China.

The dispute here is whether the working class revolution should be interpeted in the narrow way you do as being a revolution by urban factory workers, or whether a revolution by the greater mass of the working classes of a society -- as in China is possible.

[BobKKKindle$]

Even were that true in China, which I dispute, so what!And yet you have not given us any evidence to show that China was anything but a capitalist society, or to tell us when and why you think that China ceased to be non-capitalist. Indeed, in light of your insistence that China was feudal you don't seem entirely clear on what capitalism is. I accept that socialists should defend government policies and institutions that are progressive for the working class under capitalism - however it is still not the role of socialists to tell capitalist governments how they should manage the economy, it is our role to support the overthrow of capitalist governments like the PRC.


Is not the movement of the population from agriculture to industry a progressive step?No, because, as I've already remarked, what affects the possibility of revolution is not the size of the urban workforce, but the correlation of political forces, especially the presence or absence of revolutionary leadership - and unfortunately revolutionary leadership of any kind has been absent for much of the PRC's duration, and when an advanced section of the working class has emerged with an awareness of the real nature of the regime and the economic structure of Chinese society (for example, the radical organization Sheng-wu-lien during the Cultural Revolution) it has always encountered oppression from the state, with China's leaders having demonstrated a remarkable capacity to put aside their factional differences for a limited period of time whenever a serious challenge to their position has presented itself and defend what they have in common, i.e. their joint class interests as members of the ruling bureaucracy. If you accept that there is something progressive about people moving to urban areas then that necessarily implies that there is something progressive about capitalism at the moment in light of the fact that rural-urban migration is an ongoing process.


But one should bear in mind that one of the innovations This was an "innovation" that was motivated partly (especially if we are concerned with the Third Front economic policy during the Cultural Revolution - the furnaces of the Great Leap Forward may have been influenced by other things like wanting to take advantage of the rural workforce, which could be subject to high rates of exploitation due to not being give the same legal rights and privileges as the urban workforce) by the necessity of spreading out industry in a way that would allow China to continue to defend herself against attack if her eastern cities were bombed or captured, so once again we can see the centrality of international competition in the policies of the Chinese government, and indeed all capitalist states in the imperialist epoch.


So the development of the productive forces has nothing to do with the emancipation of the working class from material poverty?The development of the productive forces is what makes capitalism historically progressive because it makes the abolition of hardship possible for the first time in human history and it also generates a social force capable of realizing this possibility, in the form of the proletariat. However by the time the CPC was executing economic development in China the continued existence of capitalism was not necessary or progressive in the same way that it had been in the past (for example, when the Communards seized power, which Marx specifically cited as an instance of workers taking power before capitalism had fully completed its historic function) because capitalism had already entered its imperialist phase, under which the development of the productive forces is increasingly orientated towards sectors that provide no potential for emancipation in a post-capitalist economic order, and which threaten the interests of workers under capitalism, such as the arms industry, the expansion of which was (and still is) definitely a primary objective of the regime in China. In this context whether the CPC succeeded in developing the Chinese economy or not is irrelevant because there is no longer an objective need for development under capitalism and the development that did occur has served primarily to transform China into one of the world's leading imperialist powers, the same being true of other countries that were able to develop themselves in the post-war era, like South Korea and India. In the current epoch capitalism is wholly reactionary and parasitic, the crisis that socialists have to grapple with is, to paraphrase Trotsky, one of revolutionary leadership.


How could the working people of China possibly develop a decent condition of life without a higher productivity of labour?By seizing power as part of an international working-class revolution, as they almost did in 1925 and 1927, or by challenging the interests of the ruling bureaucracy, as they did in 1957 in Shanghai, as well as during the wind of economism at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution. I do not deny that some improvements in living standards are possible under capitalism and that these improvements may even come about as a result of countries developing their economies, but when these improvements have been won it is often been as a result of workers entering into struggle or ruling classes being willing to make concessions due to the threat of a challenge from below, and the crises and irreconcilable class antagonisms that lie at the heart of capitalism mean that the fundamental and permanent abolition of exploitation (as distinct from temporary gains which do not give workers control over their lives and workplaces) can only come about through a working class revolution on an international scale, which will put workers and the bureaucracy on opposite sides of the barricades in China. You seem to be saying that workers should sit quietly and develop the productive forces in countries like China due to the possibility of their living standards being improved as a result of economic development, and I'd be interested to know whether you think that this should also be the case in societies that also experienced development in the post-war era and which we can both regard as capitalist, like South Korea, and Thailand, and Spain.


But again, the distinctive feature of the Maoist tendency among Chinese socialists is the way they argued against the 'productive forces in command' line, and put the emphasis on transforming relations of productionYou have a bad habit of taking the statements of the PRC and their international supporters at face value. The truth is that even during the movement that Maoists cite as evidence of the primacy of the relations of production over the productive forces - the Cultural Revolution - the CPC was keen to keep production going and prevent workers from participation in the initial stages of the movement. When Mao's Sixteen Points were published in August 1966, identifying “capitalist roaders in authority in the party” as the key enemy for the first time, and when his own dazibao entitled “Bombard the Headquarters!” appeared during the same month, production was also identified as a central (if not the central) concern, with the Cultural Revolution being described as enabling workers to “grasp revolution and promote production” and a project that would serve as “a powerful motive force for the development of the social productive forces”. Although the document identified that Cultural Revolution committees and groups in schools and universities should have “a certain number of representatives of the workers”, and also called for “a system of general elections” for those same bodies, it gave no indication that workers would actually be allowed to participate fully, and, according to MacFarquhar, also stipulated that the Cultural Revolution in the PLA would be carried out in accordance with separate instructions issued by the Military Affairs Commission, and a further central decree issued only a few days after the Sixteen Points decided that in regions along China's borders, the masses would not be permitted to “dismiss officials from office”. The wind of economism in late 1966 signified that workers took advantage of the Cultural Revolution to pursue their own interests and in particular to seek to expand their consumption, and in response to this trend in Shanghai, the Workers General Headquarters, acting as a local representative of the leadership, released an “Urgent Notice” which was published throughout the country as part of the People's Daily on the 12th of January. This notice decreed that those who had sabotaged production would be arrested by the Public Security Bureau, “in accordance with the law”, that the participants were also guilty of having opposed Mao, that workers would no longer be allowed to share revolutionary experiences, that they would be made to repay the expense money they had used to travel to other work units and cities, that workers and cadres both had a duty to return to their original units and work for eight hours each day, that wages would be frozen, and that enterprise funds would no longer be used to make unauthorized payments to workers making “economistic” demands, which were attributed to the work of “revisionists”. This is harsh evidence of the centrality of production and accumulation which pretty much eliminates your thesis that Mao was ever concerned with societal transformations above accumulation.

The whole of the Cultural Revolution is a tale of a bureaucracy (with Mao as its leader) wanting to keep the working class passive, and it conveys very well the class character of the Chinese government. In the future you would do well to support your arguments with evidence apart from the ideological proclamations of a capitalist government. We can talk further about the Cultural Revolution if you like - maybe we can debate whether the butchering of thousands of radical workers in the later half of 1967 and the whole of 1968 is evidence of the PRC being socialist or not.


The dispute here is whether the working class revolution should be interpeted in the narrow way you do as being a revolution by urban factory workers, or whether a revolution by the greater mass of the working classes of a societyIf we can both agree that the urban working class (which is not limited to factory workers at all - don't try and distort my positions) did not play a central role in the revolution of 1949 then it seems the only other group that could fall into the vague category of "greater mass of the working classes of a society" is the peasantry, who are not part of the working class by the Marxist definition of course - and yet a defining feature of the peasantry is that it is not a class capable of exercising independent leadership but can only serve as a base of support for other class forces. This is what happened in China because the revolution was led and defined by a section of the petty-bourgeoisie in the form of the intelligentsia, who carried out some democratic tasks, and lent on and made concessions to the peasantry in order to take power - indeed in light of what the peasantry went through during the Great Leap Forward it is almost absurd to suggest that the PRC was ever a regime representing the class interests of rural producers. I've pointed out to you multiple times that the CPC had a central role not only in preventing working class struggles as it captured the cities but also in preventing peasants from taking radical action against landlords and other traditional elites in the countryside but you've persisted in propagating the lie that the Chinese revolution was some kind of socialist revolution without any evidence to back up your case.

You've also failed to deal with many of the points I raised in our previous exchanges, like the evidence I cited to show that China was not feudal, the incapacity of the bourgeoisie to support the struggle against imperialism or the attainment of any democratic goals due to its close links with imperialism, the signs that a socialist revolution was possible in China in the 1920s, and so on.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Charles Xavier:


Wow never read anything so wrong in my life.

Care to elaborate, or are you merely content to stick your fingers in your ears and sing "La, La, Lah..."?


Conspiracy theorists, here is your new sun, please worship.

What 'conspiracy'?

[Kayser_Soso]

Charles Xavier:



Care to elaborate, or are you merely content to stick your fingers in your ears and sing "La, La, Lah..."?



This from the guy whose basic argument is to repeat a logical fallacy laden slogan as though it were a mantra. Ever consider joining the Hare Krishnas? Their nonsensical slogan has a better ring to it, and workers don't care about what they have to say either.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KS:


This from the guy whose basic argument is to repeat a logical fallacy laden slogan as though it were a mantra. Ever consider joining the Hare Krishnas? Their nonsensical slogan has a better ring to it, and workers don't care about what they have to say either.

Which you failed to show was a fallacy.

And, you keep repeating this unfounded allegation, no doubt in the hope that if you say it often enough it will become true.

But, since truth is tested in practice, we at least know that Stalinism and Maoism have been refuted by history.

Now, that does not need repeating to make it true...

[Kayser_Soso]

KS:



Which you failed to show was a fallacy.

And, you keep repeating this unfounded allegation, no doubt in the hope that if you say it often enough it will become true.

But, since truth is tested in practice, we at least know that Stalinism and Maoism have been refuted by history.

Now, that does not need repeating to make it true...

Actually I showed the fallacy several times- it is on two levels. First is the post hoc ergo propter hoc, because you assume that because these countries failed after implementing "socialism in one country", it must be because of this. It begs the question, what exactly is socialism in one country, because it is simply inaccurate to say that the USSR was never concerned with spreading the revolution- in fact it did just that from time to time. Lastly, there is a big of reduction to absurdity here, because you reduce everything down to theory, as if there was some fork in the road and people like Stalin just took the wrong path, dooming them to failure from the start. Hundreds if not thousands of decisions and policies were made available to the socialists of the 20th century. The failure of the socialist states were not linked to any one of them. History is a little too complicated for you apparently.

Then of course there is the fact that Lenin did indeed acknowledge that "socialism" in one country was indeed possible, as did Otto Bauer and several other Marxist intellectuals before him.

So that's what's wrong with your argument.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KS:


Actually I showed the fallacy several times- it is on two levels. First is the post hoc ergo propter hoc, because you assume that because these countries failed after implementing "socialism in one country", it must be because of this. It begs the question, what exactly is socialism in one country, because it is simply inaccurate to say that the USSR was never concerned with spreading the revolution- in fact it did just that from time to time. Lastly, there is a big of reduction to absurdity here, because you reduce everything down to theory, as if there was some fork in the road and people like Stalin just took the wrong path, dooming them to failure from the start. Hundreds if not thousands of decisions and policies were made available to the socialists of the 20th century. The failure of the socialist states were not linked to any one of them. History is a little too complicated for you apparently.

This wasn't your alleged 'proof', which amounted to arguing that if it were the case that the doctrine that socialism can be created in one country had been refuted by history then any theory from the past (such as, the theory that human beings could invent flying machines) which didn't work out straight away would also have been refuted the first few occasions on which they had failed. But that would be a ridiculous position to hold, since these theories later worked.

That was your argument.

I replied to it by noting that my argument in fact had two strands to it, a theoretical part (which showed that socialism in one country was impossible) and a factual part, which confirmed the theory: whenever socialism in one country has been tried, it has failed. I then appealed to the many attempts there have been to produce perpetual motion machines, which have all failed, since they violate physical theory, as an analogy.

You responded by pointing out that these machines violate the second law of thermodynamics, and, since there is no such law in this case, the analogy is inapt.

I then pointed out that I had not in fact appealed to a law, but (indirectly) to Sadi Carnot's theory, and questioned your use of the word "law"; at that point you stopped replying to this aspect of my argument.

So, your 'refutation' stalled; in which case it's not a refutation.

The 'new' points you make above have already been answered in this thread and in the 'Socialism in one country' thread.

[Kayser_Soso]

KS:



This wasn't your alleged 'proof', which amounted to arguing that if it were the case that the doctrine that socialism can be created in one country had been refuted by history then any theory from the past (such as, the theory that human beings could invent flying machines) which didn't work out straight away would also have been refuted the first few occasions on which they had failed. But that would be a ridiculous position to hold, since these theories later worked.

Yes, they LATER worked. But what if somebody in 1902 had looked at the THOUSANDS of human attempts at flight throughout history, all of which up to that point had failed(many not even getting off the ground), and made the conclusion you did, refusing to examine the relevant details as to why those other experiments failed. You named 12 failed socialist states, one can research and find thousands of failed flying machines. They also failed for a number of particular reasons.



I replied to it by noting that my argument in fact had two strands to it, a theoretical part (which showed that socialism in one country was impossible) and a factual part, which confirmed the theory: whenever socialism in one country has been tried, it has failed.

Begs the question, "what is socialism in one country", and did it fail due to this or other factors. It is ridiculous to think there would be some specific single factor that can attribute for what was essentially a domino-like collapse. By the way, every morning I get up and have a cup of coffee. According to my theory, this prevents being attacked by tigers. So far, history has proven me right- because I have yet to have been attacked by tigers.



I then appealed to the many attempts there have been to produce perpetual motion machines, which have all failed, since they violate physical theory, as an analogy.

And this is an inaccurate comparison because physics is more empirical than social science, for one reason.



You responded by pointing out that these machines violate the second law of thermodynamics, and, since there is no such law in this case, the analogy is inapt.

Yeah, and there's that.



I then pointed out that I had not in fact appealed to a law, but (indirectly) to Sadi Carnot's theory, and questioned your use of the word "law"; at that point you stopped replying to this aspect of my argument.

It is still a "hard science" whereas Marxism is not.




The 'new' points you make above have already been answered in this thread and in the 'Socialism in one country' thread.

I prefer someone who can articulate their arguments and not constantly refer someone to another thread.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KS:


Yes, they LATER worked. But what if somebody in 1902 had looked at the THOUSANDS of human attempts at flight throughout history, all of which up to that point had failed(many not even getting off the ground), and made the conclusion you did, refusing to examine the relevant details as to why those other experiments failed. You named 12 failed socialist states, one can research and find thousands of failed flying machines. They also failed for a number of particular reasons.

I have already agreed with this, so the above is all wasted effort and wasted CAPITALS.


Begs the question, "what is socialism in one country", and did it fail due to this or other factors. It is ridiculous to think there would be some specific single factor that can attribute for what was essentially a domino-like collapse. By the way, every morning I get up and have a cup of coffee. According to my theory, this prevents being attacked by tigers. So far, history has proven me right- because I have yet to have been attacked by tigers.

No more than it 'begs the question', "What is a flying machine?"


And this is an inaccurate comparison because physics is more empirical than social science, for one reason.

But you are the one who referred us to flying machines, which, last time I checked, aren't part of 'social science'. So, if you can refer us to these, why can't I refer you to perpetual motion machines?


Yeah, and there's that.

It is still a "hard science" whereas Marxism is not.

But, and once more, then how come you can refer us to aerodynamics (in your reply about flying machines)? If you can do it, so can I.


I prefer someone who can articulate their arguments and not constantly refer someone to another thread.

That is, of course, your problem.

[Kayser_Soso]

KS:



I have already agreed with this, so the above is all wasted effort and wasted CAPITALS.

And you have yet to take it to heart.




No more than it 'begs the question', "What is a flying machine?"

It's something that flies far over your head, like this analogy.




But you are the one who referred us to flying machines, which, last time I checked, aren't part of 'social science'. So, if you can refer us to these, why can't I refer you to perpetual motion machines?

Let's stick to your logical fallacies please. My argument is not referring to aerodynamics, just an example of trying to attempt something complicated and trying again.


I'd love to hear how your admittedly untested ideas are more relevant to workers' revolution.

[anticap]

Pardon me for butting in, but anyone who pretends to be an expert at spotting logical fallacies ought to know better than to say "begs the question (http://fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html)" when s/he means "raises the question."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KS:


And you have yet to take it to heart.

You are sounding increasingly religious.


It's something that flies far over your head, like this analogy.

Which then crashes on the other side -- a bit like every Stalinist and Maoist state has so far managed to do.


Let's stick to your logical fallacies please. My argument is not referring to aerodynamics, just an example of trying to attempt something complicated and trying again.

But your argument has to refer to aerodynamics, for without it, planes would not fly.

And, you have yet to show my argument is fallacious.


I'd love to hear how your admittedly untested ideas are more relevant to workers' revolution.

Better than yours, which have been tested, and have failed every single time.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Anticap:


Pardon me for butting in, but anyone who pretends to be an expert at spotting logical fallacies ought to know better than to say "begs the question" when s/he means "raises the question."

And yet, this is in fact current usage (although it isn't academic logicians' usage), and it certainly is KS's usage, which is what I was parodying.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-beg1.htm

[anticap]

Rosa, my comment was directed at Kayser, not at you; I should have quoted her/him to make that clear.

Yes, the usage has slipped (the link I gave mentions that as well). I find the popular (mis-)usage annoying, but I wouldn't have gone out of my way to mention it except that Kayser has been smugly riding you about fallacies for several pages and ought not therefore to be so sloppy.

[Kayser_Soso]

Pardon me for butting in, but anyone who pretends to be an expert at spotting logical fallacies ought to know better than to say "begs the question (http://fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html)" when s/he means "raises the question."

I am not claiming to be an expert in logical fallacies, and I for one believe that most people who do forget the all important caveat- appeal to logic. However, when an argument contains fallacies on several levels, we may conclude that it is probably a really bad argument.

[Kayser_Soso]

KS:



You are sounding increasingly religious.

I see the bank hasn't foreclosed on your glass house.




Which then crashes on the other side -- a bit like every Stalinist and Maoist state has so far managed to do.

Airplanes crash all the time- do we write off aerodynamics then? No. We investigate crashes to find the specific reasons, and we then develop techniques and devices to prevent those problems. We don't just cut to the root concept and say that powered flight isn't meant to be.




But your argument has to refer to aerodynamics, for without it, planes would not fly.

It is loosely connected to it.



And, you have yet to show my argument is fallacious.

I have; just because you can't comprehend the simple explanation doesn't mean I haven't done it.




Better than yours, which have been tested, and have failed every single time.

Please explain how a theory that has never been tested, and thus never produced anything for anyone, is better than a theory that has been tested, yielding volumes of important data and experience, plus industrialized and educated several countries, in some cases doubling their population. See to you all that was worthless, because living in a privileged country means that you never benefited from what socialism brought to those nations, at least not directly. So it's easy for you to just eschew all the accomplishments of these people with a simple slogan- saying it failed.

If YOUR theory is indeed better- then I have an even BETTER idea where the proletariat develops the technology to open a wormhole, banishing the bourgeois to another dimension, and everybody lives happily ever after in a wonderful, egalitarian world where there is no unhappiness ever. That idea is MUCH better than yours. Like yours, it hasn't done jack shit for anyone, but it never failed, that much is true!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KS:


I see the bank hasn't foreclosed on your glass house.

And yet you are content to throw stones about the place in yours.


Airplanes crash all the time- do we write off aerodynamics then? No. We investigate crashes to find the specific reasons, and we then develop techniques and devices to prevent those problems....

Indeed, we do not write aerodynamics off, that is why you need it to make your analogy work -- and aerodynamics is 'hard science', as you put it.


We don't just cut to the root concept and say that powered flight isn't meant to be

But, we do say perpetual motion machines are impossible. Same with socialism in one country.


It is loosely connected to it.

Your argument above shows that the word "loosely" here is inapt.


I have; just because you can't comprehend the simple explanation doesn't mean I haven't done it.

No you haven't; you appealed to post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is not my argument.

And we now know that your knowledge of logic leaves much to be desired.


Please explain how a theory that has never been tested, and thus never produced anything for anyone, is better than a theory that has been tested, yielding volumes of important data and experience, plus industrialized and educated several countries, in some cases doubling their population. See to you all that was worthless, because living in a privileged country means that you never benefited from what socialism brought to those nations, at least not directly. So it's easy for you to just eschew all the accomplishments of these people with a simple slogan- saying it failed.

But it has been tested: it predicted that socialism in one country would fail, and it has -- many times.

Now, we can speculate all day long, exchange insults and make wild allegations, but one thing not in doubt is this: every former 'socialist' state has failed. So, your theory knows nothing but failure. You can cling onto it if you want, in the vain hope that you lot were just unlucky, but humanity cannot risk another set of 'glorious' ML-induced failures.

May I also remind you that industrial advance is no proof of success; if it were then capitalism would be deemed a success. Neither, too, is educational advance, and for the same reasons.


If YOUR theory is indeed better- then I have an even BETTER idea where the proletariat develops the technology to open a wormhole, banishing the bourgeois to another dimension, and everybody lives happily ever after in a wonderful, egalitarian world where there is no unhappiness ever. That idea is MUCH better than yours. Like yours, it hasn't done jack shit for anyone, but it never failed, that much is true!

Yes, the use of capitals certainly puts me in my place. How can I possibly win against the caps lock key!

And, of course, our theory does not claim to be able to do anything for anyone, since it is the working class that must do it for themselves, as Marx indicated.

Part of the reason why ML has failed is that it did indeed try to 'do things' -- it tried to introduce socialism from above, and as the thread on that topic has shown (in fact, parts of this thread), that approach to socialism will always fail.

Here it is the post that began it all, again:


BTPound, it all depends on whether you believe in socialism from above (Maoism, Stalinism, putchism, and various forms of bourgeois social democracy), or socialism from below (Leninism, Trotskyism and various forms of anarchism and/or anarcho-syndicalism).

Of course, to lay my cards on the table, the former cannot in fact deliver socialism, but instead creates some form of bonapartism, state capitalism or bourgeois 'democracy', which will simply require another round of class struggle to remove.

More on this here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/index.htm

As we have seen, that is precisely what has happened: all the former 'socialist' states have embraced some form of capitalism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

anticap:


Rosa, my comment was directed at Kayser, not at you; I should have quoted her/him to make that clear.

Yes, the usage has slipped (the link I gave mentions that as well). I find the popular (mis-)usage annoying, but I wouldn't have gone out of my way to mention it except that Kayser has been smugly riding you about fallacies for several pages and ought not therefore to be so sloppy.

Fair enough -- pardon me for maligning your good name!:)

[Kayser_Soso]

KS:


Indeed, we do not write aerodynamics off, that is why you need it to make your analogy work -- and aerodynamics is 'hard science', as you put it.

But the point is that after thousands, if not tens of thousands of failed attempts at flight, people did not give up. They built on experience and finally succeeded. And planes still crash...




But, we do say perpetual motion machines are impossible. Same with socialism in one country.

Right, and this would be a false analogy.




No you haven't; you appealed to post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is not my argument.

I have mentioned several fallacies in your argument, of which that is only one.



But it has been tested: it predicted that socialism in one country would fail, and it has -- many times.

I see, so if someone predicts something, and they turn out to be right, even if they are totally wrong about the details some times, it means they have discovered a new law akin to a law of physics. So that means that psychics with good hit rates are actually right now.



So, your theory knows nothing but failure. You can cling onto it if you want, in the vain hope that you lot were just unlucky, but humanity cannot risk another set of 'glorious' ML-induced failures.

Oh please do tell me what my "failure" is. And when your theory has some real-world experience under its belt, contact me.



May I also remind you that industrial advance is no proof of success; if it were then capitalism would be deemed a success. Neither, too, is educational advance, and for the same reasons.

Actually it is proof of success given the fact that the industrialization of these countries was far quicker and less painful compared to that of every other industrial nation.




And, of course, our theory does not claim to be able to do anything for anyone, since it is the working class that must do it for themselves, as Marx indicated.

Again, call me when your theory has accomplished something.



Part of the reason why ML has failed is that it did indeed try to 'do things' -- it tried to introduce socialism from above, and as the thread on that topic has shown (in fact, parts of this thread), that approach to socialism will always fail.

Great, define "socialism in one country" with another slogan, socialism from above/below.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KS:


But the point is that after thousands, if not tens of thousands of failed attempts at flight, people did not give up. They built on experience and finally succeeded. And planes still crash...

And aerodynamics and several other sciences tell us why. They also tell us when certain planes will not fly, and cannot fly -- just like theory and experience tell us that socialism in one country cannot work.


Right, and this would be a false analogy.

So you say, but you struggle with simple logic.


I have mentioned several fallacies in your argument, of which that is only one.

And they were no more accurate than this one was.


I see, so if someone predicts something, and they turn out to be right, even if they are totally wrong about the details some times, it means they have discovered a new law akin to a law of physics. So that means that psychics with good hit rates are actually right now.

Well, you asked if our theory had been tested; I replied. If you do not like my reply, too bad.

And, I fail to see what psychics have to do with this. What 'theory' do they have? And what successful predictions can they appeal to?


Oh please do tell me what my "failure" is. And when your theory has some real-world experience under its belt, contact me.

Perhaps you haven't heard, but the following are no longer 'socialist': the former USSR, E Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania, China, Vietnam, Cambodia -- and Cuba and N Korea do not look like they'll last much longer (unless one or both are bailed out by, say, Chavez, or some other capitalist economy).

Moreover, in not one case did the working class come to the defence of 'their' state as it embraced capitalism.

Not a brilliant record, and not one ounce of Trotskyism in there to blame either.

Perhaps you can point to a successful ML-'socialist' state on the outer fringes of the galaxy?


Actually it is proof of success given the fact that the industrialization of these countries was far quicker and less painful compared to that of every other industrial nation.

What does that prove other than that the rate of exploitation was higher?


Again, call me when your theory has accomplished something.

You seem to think theories can accomplish things -- perhaps you think theories are workers?

I'd put nothing past you...


Great, define "socialism in one country" with another slogan, socialism from above/below.

Define "define".

[Kayser_Soso]

KS:
And aerodynamics and several other sciences tell us why. They also tell us when certain planes will not fly, and cannot fly -- just like theory and experience tell us that socialism in one country cannot work.

I think I will use your own words here:

So you say, but you struggle with simple logic.




Perhaps you haven't heard, but the following are no longer 'socialist': the former USSR, E Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania, China, Vietnam, Cambodia -- and Cuba and N Korea do not look like they'll last much longer (unless one or both are bailed out by, say, Chavez, or some other capitalist economy).

Yes and ALL those states failed because of one particular theoretical reason, and we should examine ANY details because everything can be reduced down to simple slogans like socialism in one country and socialism from above!



Moreover, in not one case did the working class come to the defence of 'their' state as it embraced capitalism.

Typical ignorant westerner. Research. Do some.



What does that prove other than that the rate of exploitation was higher?

Theres tens of millions of people who really appreciate the accomplishments of socialism. But obviously a Western intellectual such as your self is FAR more intelligent than Eastern Europeans and Asian people right? It's perfectly fine for you to call all their accomplishments worthless.






Define "define".

Apparently you are too stupid to define your own slogans.


Very well then- You say the working class must liberate itself. Well my friend- EVERY attempt of the working class to do so, in 150 years of workers' struggle, has failed, in fact never even got off the ground in most cases. Some people have predicted it would fail. Ergo the idea of worker's self-liberation has been refuted by history.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KS:


I think I will use your own words here:

So you say, but you struggle with simple logic.

Maybe so, maybe not, but one thing is for sure: I do not accept a theory that has presided over little other than failure.


Yes and ALL those states failed because of one particular theoretical reason, and we should examine ANY details because everything can be reduced down to simple slogans like socialism in one country and socialism from above!

In forums like this, especially in Learning, these arguments often get reduced to simple slogans, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc. If you can use them, so can I.

And, simplicity is not the same as false.


Typical ignorant westerner. Research. Do some.

Well, let's see the videos and pictures of the barricades, the massed ranks of workers, the general strikes, the workers' militia defending 'their state'...

Er..., there are none.

In fact, in many cases, they helped overturn these 'socialist' states.


Theres tens of millions of people who really appreciate the accomplishments of socialism. But obviously a Western intellectual such as your self is FAR more intelligent than Eastern Europeans and Asian people right? It's perfectly fine for you to call all their accomplishments worthless.

Equal, if not more millions appreciate the accomplishments of capitalism -- including unprecedented education, health care, travel, consumer goods, and increased longevity, compared to, say, four hundred years ago. But, what does that prove? Nothing.

Same with your alleged 'socialist' states.

And, of course, workers in general did nothing to defend all these wonderful 'gifts' from the ruling classes of the former USSR, E. Europe and elsewhere. That's how 'appreciative' they were.

And I did not say these advances were 'worthless', only that they proved no more than similar advances in 'western' capitalism proved.


Apparently you are too stupid to define your own slogans.

Maybe so, maybe not, but until you define "define" we will never know, will we?

Or are you 'too stupid' to define "define"?


Very well then- You say the working class must liberate itself. Well my friend- EVERY attempt of the working class to do so, in 150 years of workers' struggle, has failed, in fact never even got off the ground in most cases. Some people have predicted it would fail. Ergo the idea of worker's self-liberation has been refuted by history.

Not so; in every case, the working class was decimated; there can be no workers' revolution if the working class has been massacred. This was true of the Paris Commune and the 1917 revolution.

Or do you know of another workers' revolution that did not suffer so?

And, the 'predictions' that workers' revolutions would fail did not do so on the basis of the destruction of the working class in each case, so such 'predictions' are theoretically flawed.

[Kayser_Soso]

Maybe so, maybe not, but one thing is for sure: I do not accept a theory that has presided over little other than failure.

You just accept one wholeheartedly that according to you has never even been tested. And wait a sec, I thought people do things, not theories. Apparently theory is important when it suits you.




In forums like this, especially in Learning, these arguments often get reduced to simple slogans, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc. If you can use them, so can I.

And, simplicity is not the same as false.

Again, my argument was not limited to that term, and I explained how it applies to your argument.




Well, let's see the videos and pictures of the barricades, the massed ranks of workers, the general strikes, the workers' militia defending 'their state'...

Er..., there are none.

Er..actuallly there were, you just never bothered to check.






Equal, if not more millions appreciate the accomplishments of capitalism -- including unprecedented education, health care, travel, consumer goods, and increased longevity, compared to, say, four hundred years ago. But, what does that prove? Nothing.

Same with your alleged 'socialist' states.

Actually it does prove something when life in those former socialist states is not demonstrably worse.



And, of course, workers in general did nothing to defend all these wonderful 'gifts' from the ruling classes of the former USSR, E. Europe and elsewhere. That's how 'appreciative' they were.

Once again, had you done some digging you would have found that they did. Did you ever wonder why the Communist party had to be banned and persecuted in former socialist nations; or why in several countries they won democratic elections until the National Endowment for Democracy stepped in and had them overturned? Check up on Bulgaria and Albania for example.



And I did not say these advances were 'worthless', only that they proved no more than similar advances in 'western' capitalism proved.

Except without things like slavery and massive exploitation. Tell me, in the dawn of English or American capitalism, did they build creches for mothers, summer homes and recreation facilities for workers, etc.?




Maybe so, maybe not, but until you define "define" we will never know, will we?

Or are you 'too stupid' to define "define"?

Define means explain your otherwise empty slogans. As I said, socialism in one country is pretty vague. If one claims that the USSR was totally dedicated to building socialism entirely within its borders, this is demonstrably false. So you have to explain as to where consolidation of a socialist revolution becomes your hated socialism in one country. Also explaining a viable alternative would be nice too.




Not so; in every case, the working class was decimated; there can be no workers' revolution if the working class has been massacred. This was true of the Paris Commune and the 1917 revolution.

Or do you know of another workers' revolution that did not suffer so?

And, the 'predictions' that workers' revolutions would fail did not do so on the basis of the destruction of the working class in each case, so such 'predictions' are theoretically flawed.


So it's not failure if they are decimated? You don't consider getting physically destroyed a failure? See I think that this would be a bit important, surviving counter revolution. So by your logic, worker's self-emancipation is impossible, and has failed every time it was attempted. It's time for you to go into your cocoon and emerge a neo-con like the rest of the Trots of old.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KS:


You just accept one wholeheartedly that according to you has never even been tested. And wait a sec, I thought people do things, not theories. Apparently theory is important when it suits you.

This is no more of a problem for me than it was for Marx accepting the theory (that hadn't been tested) which he wrote and revised from the 1840s through the 1880s, but it is a problem for you accepting a theory that has presided over repeated failure -- tested in practice, your theory has failed, and many times.


Again, my argument was not limited to that term, and I explained how it applies to your argument.

Indeed, and the rest of it was no less 'simplistic'.


Er..actually there were, you just never bothered to check.

And you can't be bothered to link to them. In the absence of which, we can assume they do not exist, and you are just grandstanding.


Actually it does prove something when life in those former socialist states is not demonstrably worse.

Life is worse in Argentina these days than it was in, say, the 1970s. So, what does that prove?


Once again, had you done some digging you would have found that they did. Did you ever wonder why the Communist party had to be banned and persecuted in former socialist nations; or why in several countries they won democratic elections until the National Endowment for Democracy stepped in and had them overturned? Check up on Bulgaria and Albania for example.

So, you keep saying, but you are rather shy about providing the proof.

And, given the mess the former communist parties made of the states they ran, no wonder they were banned.

Ever wondered why many want to ban neo-Nazi parties in Germany? Or why they are banned in, say, Israel?

And, winning elections is no more impressive than far right parties winning elections.


Except without things like slavery and massive exploitation. Tell me, in the dawn of English or American capitalism, did they build creches for mothers, summer homes and recreation facilities for workers, etc.?

In Norway and Sweden they did.


Define means explain your otherwise empty slogans.

In fact, there at least 17 different definitions of "definition". If you ask real nice, I might tell you a few.


As I said, socialism in one country is pretty vague. If one claims that the USSR was totally dedicated to building socialism entirely within its borders, this is demonstrably false. So you have to explain as to where consolidation of a socialist revolution becomes your hated socialism in one country. Also explaining a viable alternative would be nice too

It wasn't vague for Stalin in 1925; nor was it vague for Lenin and the Bolshevik party. Only you seem to think it vague; but that is your problem.


So it's not failure if they are decimated? You don't consider getting physically destroyed a failure? See I think that this would be a bit important, surviving counter revolution. So by your logic, worker's self-emancipation is impossible, and has failed every time it was attempted. It's time for you to go into your cocoon and emerge a neo-con like the rest of the Trots of old.

It didn't happen and it can't happen if the working class is destroyed. That is why Lenin and the Bolsheviks argued (before 1925 when Stalin and his henchmen changed the policy) that the revolution had to spread or die -- and they were right.

[Kayser_Soso]

And you can't be bothered to link to them. In the absence of which, we can assume they do not exist, and you are just grandstanding.

Not my job to do your research for you. I assumed that someone who considers himself a Marxist and keeps talking about what history proves would actually know something about the break up of the USSR and East Bloc. Guess I was wrong about that.




Life is worse in Argentina these days than it was in, say, the 1970s. So, what does that prove?

When was Argentina a socialist state?




So, you keep saying, but you are rather shy about providing the proof.

Are you telling me you aren't aware of the Communist party leaders jailed in Lithuania and Poland? You didn't hear about the banning of the Russian Communist party and the beatings they suffered from police on 1 May in the early 90s? I know people who were in those marches. You never heard about October 1993? You weren't aware of the referendums in the USSR where in many republics the majority voted against dissolution? You weren't aware of any of this?



And, given the mess the former communist parties made of the states they ran, no wonder they were banned.

Yes, that's what it was all about.



Ever wondered why many want to ban neo-Nazi parties in Germany? Or why they are banned in, say, Israel?

You are sounding more like an anti-Communist by the minute.



And, winning elections is no more impressive than far right parties winning elections.

Tard, you are claiming that these people, who you apparently know better than they themselves, didn't do anything to preserve their socialist states. Actually they did, ergo your claim is false. See William Blum's Killing Hope for some detailed descriptions.




In fact, there at least 17 different definitions of "definition". If you ask real nice, I might tell you a few.

Moron, this is a very simple concept. Either define, that means explain your empty slogans, or fuck off.




It wasn't vague for Stalin in 1925; nor was it vague for Lenin and the Bolshevik party. Only you seem to think it vague; but that is your problem.

Don't bring up Lenin now, because he endorsed the idea of socialism in one country.




It didn't happen and it can't happen if the working class is destroyed. That is why Lenin and the Bolsheviks argued (before 1925 when Stalin and his henchmen changed the policy) that the revolution had to spread or die -- and they were right.

So your theory basically works so long as the counter-revolutionaries don't destroy you, which essentially means so long as they lie down and let you spread the revolution all over the place. This is in effect what you are saying, whether you like it or not. If you cannot survive the counter-revolution and the physical destruction of your forces, your theory is worthless.

You say spread the revolution or die- great, what happens when it stalls out as it did in 1918? Everyone just sits on their hands and starves?

[Comrade Martin]

How boring of a discussion.

If your country isn't severely underdeveloped and maybe experiencing Feudalist property relations on a mass scale - what use is Maoism at all?

Or Leninism for that matter%

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KS:


Not my job to do your research for you. I assumed that someone who considers himself a Marxist and keeps talking about what history proves would actually know something about the break up of the USSR and East Bloc. Guess I was wrong about that.

"Not your job" to defend your politics!?

Fine, then my allegations still stand: workers did not rise to defend these failed 'socialist' states, and in many cases helped overthrow them.


When was Argentina a socialist state?

When was the former USSR and the Eastern Block socialist?


Are you telling me you aren't aware of the Communist party leaders jailed in Lithuania and Poland? You didn't hear about the banning of the Russian Communist party and the beatings they suffered from police on 1 May in the early 90s? I know people who were in those marches. You never heard about October 1993? You weren't aware of the referendums in the USSR where in many republics the majority voted against dissolution? You weren't aware of any of this?

I thought you weren't into defending your failed ideas. Why the change of heart?

Indeed, I have heard of these, but what has this got to do with the mass of the working class defending 'their' state?

'Referendums', of course, are precisely what the victorious working class have always used. They certainly used them in Paris in 1870, Moscow in 1905, Russian in 1917, Spain in 1936...

As I said, there was no general uprising of the working class in defence of these failed 'socialist' states; if there had been, you'd be the first to quote them.

That's the real reason for your 'reticence'.

Contrast this with the way that, say, the Nepalese population rose in 2006:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/strike1601.jpg-for-web-NORMAL.jpg

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/strike2006.jpg

Contrast the above with this:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/USSR.jpg

Dramatic Scenes From The Former USSR In 1991, Showing The Massed Ranks Of Workers Defending 'Their' State

[Yes, it's supposed to be blank!]


Yes, that's what it was all about.

Still 'defending' your ideas, I see.


You are sounding more like an anti-Communist by the minute.

If by "Communist" you mean "ML-er", I'm glad you are finally getting the point -- something that has been obvious at RevLeft since I joined four years ago. But, what revolutionary wouldn't be "ant-Communist" -- in this sense -- with its 'socialism' from above and long-term history of failure to boast of?


Tard, you are claiming that these people, who you apparently know better than they themselves, didn't do anything to preserve their socialist states. Actually they did, ergo your claim is false. See William Blum's Killing Hope for some detailed descriptions.

As I noted above, such passive opinion sampling is, of course, what led to the Paris commune, the revolution of 1905, and 1917, the Spanish revolution...

Is this the best 'evidence' you have -- a vote!

No pictures, no video...? Just a reference to a book?

Here's the content of that book, which is, I agree, excellent:


Introduction
1. China - 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid?
2. Italy - 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style
3. Greece - 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client state
4. The Philippines - 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony
5. Korea - 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be?
6. Albania - 1949-1953: The proper English spy
7. Eastern Europe - 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor
8. Germany - 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to terrorism
9. Iran - 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings
10. Guatemala - 1953-1954: While the world watched
11. Costa Rica - Mid-1950s: Trying to topple an ally - Part 1
12. Syria - 1956-1957: Purchasing a new government
13. Middle East - 1957-1958: The Eisenhower Doctrine claims another backyard for America
14. Indonesia - 1957-1958: War and pornography
15. Western Europe - 1950s and 1960s: Fronts within fronts within fronts
16. British Guiana - 1953-1964: The CIA's international labor mafia
17. Soviet Union - Late 1940s to 1960s: From spy planes to book publishing
18. Italy - 1950s to 1970s: Supporting the Cardinal's orphans and techno-fascism
19. Vietnam - 1950-1973: The Hearts and Minds Circus
20. Cambodia - 1955-1973: Prince Sihanouk walks the high-wire of neutralism
21. Laos - 1957-1973: L'Armée Clandestine
22. Haiti - 1959-1963: The Marines land, again
23. Guatemala - 1960: One good coup deserves another
24. France/Algeria - 1960s: L'état, c'est la CIA
25. Ecuador - 1960-1963: A text book of dirty tricks
26. The Congo - 1960-1964: The assassination of Patrice Lumumba
27. Brazil - 1961-1964: Introducing the marvelous new world of death squads
28. Peru - 1960-1965: Fort Bragg moves to the jungle
29. Dominican Republic - 1960-1966: Saving democracy from communism by getting rid of democracy
30. Cuba - 1959 to 1980s: The unforgivable revolution
31. Indonesia - 1965: Liquidating President Sukarno … and 500,000 others
East Timor - 1975: And 200,000 more
32. Ghana - 1966: Kwame Nkrumah steps out of line
33. Uruguay - 1964-1970: Torture -- as American as apple pie
34. Chile - 1964-1973: A hammer and sickle stamped on your child's forehead
35. Greece - 1964-1974: "Fuck your Parliament and your Constitution," said
the President of the United States
36. Bolivia - 1964-1975: Tracking down Che Guevara in the land of coup d'etat
37. Guatemala - 1962 to 1980s: A less publicized "final solution"
38. Costa Rica - 1970-1971: Trying to topple an ally -- Part 2
39. Iraq - 1972-1975: Covert action should not be confused with missionary work
40. Australia - 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust
41. Angola - 1975 to 1980s: The Great Powers Poker Game
42. Zaire - 1975-1978: Mobutu and the CIA, a marriage made in heaven
43. Jamaica - 1976-1980: Kissinger's ultimatum
44. Seychelles - 1979-1981: Yet another area of great strategic importance
45. Grenada - 1979-1984: Lying -- one of the few growth industries in Washington
46. Morocco - 1983: A video nasty
47. Suriname - 1982-1984: Once again, the Cuban bogeyman
48. Libya - 1981-1989: Ronald Reagan meets his match
49. Nicaragua - 1981-1990: Destabilization in slow motion
50. Panama - 1969-1991: Double-crossing our drug supplier
51. Bulgaria 1990/Albania 1991: Teaching communists what democracy is all about
52. Iraq - 1990-1991: Desert holocaust
53. Afghanistan - 1979-1992: America's Jihad
54. El Salvador - 1980-1994: Human rights, Washington style
55. Haiti - 1986-1994: Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?
56. The American Empire - 1992 to present
Notes
Appendix I: This is How the Money Goes Round
Appendix II: Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-1945
Appendix III: U. S. Government Assassination Plots
Index

I see, Blum has missed a chapter out:


57: The defence of the former USSR and the E Block by the mass of the working class

Wonder why?


Moron, this is a very simple concept. Either define, that means explain your empty slogans, or fuck off.

No, that's not nicely enough. You can stay ignorant...


Don't bring up Lenin now, because he endorsed the idea of socialism in one country.

In fact this is what Lenin said:


....here is part of Trotsky's compilation of quotations from Lenin that show that he (Lenin) agreed with his (Trotsky's) analysis of SIOC:


Then follow those words of mine which Stalin presented at the Seventh Plenum of the ECCI as the most vicious expression of “Trotskyism,” i.e., as “lack of faith” in the inner forces of the revolution and the hope for aid from without. “And if this [the development of the revolution in other countries – L.T.] were not to occur, it would be hopeless to think (this is borne out both by historical experience and by theoretical considerations) that a revolutionary Russia, for instance, could hold out in face of conservative Europe, or that a socialist Germany could remain isolated in a capitalist world.” [6]

On the basis of this and two or three similar quotations is founded the condemnation pronounced against “Trotskyism” by the Seventh Plenum as having allegedly held on this “fundamental question” a position “which has nothing in common with Leninism.” Let us, therefore, pause for a moment and listen to Lenin himself.

On March 7, 1918, he said a propos of the Brest-Litovsk peace:


“This is a lesson to us because the absolute truth is that without a revolution in Germany, we shall perish.” [7]

A week later he said:


“World imperialism cannot live side by side with a victorious advancing social revolution.” [8]

A few weeks later, on April 23, Lenin said:


“Our backwardness has thrust us forward and we will perish if we are unable to hold out until we meet with the mighty support of the insurrectionary workers of other countries.” [9]

But perhaps this was all said under the special influence of the Brest-Litovsk crisis? No ! In March 1919, Lenin again repeated:


“We do not live merely in a state but in a system of states and the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist states for any length of time is inconceivable. In the end one or the other must triumph.” [10]

A year later, on April 7, 1920, Lenin reiterates:


“Capitalism, if taken on an international scale, is even now, not only in a military but also in an economic sense, stronger than the Soviet power. We must proceed from this fundamental consideration and never forget it.” [11]

On November 27, 1920, Lenin, in dealing with the question of concessions, said:


“We have now passed from the arena of war to the arena of peace and we have not forgotten that war will come again. As long as capitalism and socialism remain side by side we cannot live peacefully – the one or the other will be the victor in the end. An obituary will be sung either over the death of world capitalism or the death of the Soviet Republic. At present we have only a respite in the war.” [12]

But perhaps the continued existence of the Soviet Republic impelled Lenin to “recognize his mistake” and renounce his “lack of faith in the inner force” of the October Revolution?

At the Third Congress of the Comintern in July 1921, Lenin declared in the theses on the tactics of the Communist Party of Russia:


“An equilibrium has been created, which though extremely precarious and unstable, nevertheless enables the socialist republic to maintain its existence within capitalist surroundings, although of course not for any great length of time.”

Again, on July 5, 1921, Lenin stated point-blank at one of the sessions of the Congress:


"It was clear to us that without aid from the international world revolution, a victory of the proletarian revolution is impossible. Even prior to the revolution, as well as after it, we thought that the revolution would also occur either immediately or at least very soon in other backward countries and in the more highly developed capitalist countries, otherwise we would perish. Notwithstanding this conviction, we did our utmost to preserve the Soviet system under any circumstances and at all costs, because we know that we are working not only for ourselves but also for the international revolution.” [13]

How infinitely removed are these words, so superb in their simplicity and permeated with the spirit of internationalism, from the present smug fabrications of the epigones!...

Our party program is based entirely upon the international conditions underlying the October Revolution and the socialist construction. To prove this, one need only transcribe the entire theoretical part of our program. Here we will confine ourselves merely to pointing out that when, during the Eighth Congress of our party, the late Podbelsky inferred that some formulations of the program had reference only to the revolution in Russia, Lenin replied as follows in his concluding speech on the question of the party program (March 19, 1919):


“Podbelsky has raised objections to a paragraph which speaks of the pending social revolution ... His argument is obviously unfounded because our program deals with the social revolution on a world scale.” [14]

It will not be out of place here to point out that at about the same time Lenin suggested that our party should change its name from the Communist Party of Russia to the Communist Party, so as to emphasize still further that it is a party of international revolution. I was the only one voting for Lenin’s motion in the Central Committee. However, he did not bring the matter before the Congress in view of the foundation of the Third International. This position is proof of the fact that there was not even an inkling of socialism in one country at that time. That alone is the reason why the party program does not condemn this “theory” but merely excludes it.

This question will at once appear in a different light if we recall that on April 29, 1918, Lenin said in his report to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviet government:


“It is hardly to be expected that our next generation, which will be more highly developed, will effect a complete transition to socialism.” [19]

On December 3, 1919, at the Congress of Communes and Artels, Lenin spoke even more bluntly, saying:


“We know that we cannot establish a socialist order at the present time. It will be well if our children and perhaps our grandchildren will be able to establish it.” [20]

...A few months later, November 20, 1915, Lenin wrote specially on Russia, saying:


“The task of the proletariat follows obviously from this actual state of affairs. This task is a bold, heroic, revolutionary struggle against the monarchy (the slogans of the January conference of 1912 – the ’Three Whales’s), a struggle which would attract all democratic masses, that is, first and foremost the peasantry. At the same time, a relentless struggle must be waged against chauvinism, a struggle for the socialist revolution in Europe in alliance with its proletariat. The war crisis has strengthened the economic and political factors impelling the petty bourgeoisie, including the peasantry, towards the Left. Therein lies the objective basis of the absolute possibility of the victory of the democratic revolution in Russia. That the objective conditions for a socialist revolution have fully matured in Western Europe, was recognized before the war by all influential socialists of all advanced countries.” [21]

Thus, in 1915, Lenin clearly spoke of a democratic revolution in Russia and of a socialist revolution in Western Europe. In passing, as if speaking of something which is self-evident, he mentions that in Western Europe, distinct from Russia, in contrast to Russia, the conditions for a socialist revolution have “fully matured.” But the authors of the new theory, the authors of the draft program, simply ignore this quotation – one of many – which squarely and directly refers to Russia, just as they ignore hundreds of other passages, as they ignore all of Lenin’s works.

What was Lenin’s position on this question immediately before the October period? On leaving Switzerland after the February 1917 revolution, Lenin addressed a letter to the Swiss workers in which he declared:


“Russia is a peasant country, one of the most backward countries of Europe. Socialism cannot be immediately triumphant there but the peasant character of the country with the huge tracts of land in the hands of the feudal aristocracy and landowners, can, on the basis of the experience of 1905, give a tremendous sweep to the bourgeois democratic revolution in Russia and make our revolution a prelude to the world socialist revolution, a step towards it ... The Russian proletariat cannot by its own forces victoriously complete the socialist revolution. But it can give the Russian revolution dimensions such as will create the most favorable conditions for it, such as will in a certain sense begin it. It can facilitate matters for the entrance into a decisive battle on the part of its main and most reliable ally, the European and American socialist proletariat.” [22]...

We purposely did not deal here with innumerable articles and speeches from 1905 to 1923 in which Lenin asserts and repeats most categorically that without a victorious world revolution we are doomed to failure, that it is impossible to defeat the bourgeoisie economically in one country, particularly a backward country, that the task of building a socialist society is in its very essence an international task – from which Lenin drew conclusions which may be “pessimistic” to the promulgators of the new national reactionary utopia but which are sufficiently optimistic from the viewpoint of revolutionary internationalism. We concentrate our argument here only on the passages which the authors of the draft have themselves chosen in order to create the “necessary and sufficient” prerequisites for their utopia. And we see that their whole structure crumbles the moment it is touched.

However, we consider it in place to present at least one of Lenin’s direct statements on the controversial question which does not need any comment and will not permit any false interpretation.


“We have emphasized in many of our works; in all our speeches, and in our entire press that the situation in Russia is not the same as in the advanced capitalist countries, that we have in Russia a minority of industrial workers and an overwhelming majority of small agrarians. The social revolution in such a country can be finally successful only on two conditions: first, on the condition that it is given timely support by the social revolution in one or more advanced countries ... second, that there be an agreement between the proletariat which establishes the dictatorship or holds state power in its hands and the majority of the peasant population ...

“We know that only an agreement with the peasantry can save the socialist revolution in Russia so long as the revolution in other countries has not arrived.” [26]

We hope that this passage is sufficiently instructive. First, Lenin himself emphasizes in it that the ideas advanced by him have been developed “in many of our works, in all our speeches, and in our entire press”; secondly, this perspective was envisaged by Lenin not in 1915, two years prior to the October Revolution, but in 1921, the fourth year after the October Revolution.

What Stalin’s views on this question were in 1905 or 1915 we have absolutely no means of knowing as there are no documents whatever on the subject. But in 1924, Stalin outlined Lenin’s views on the building of socialism, as follows:


“The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a proletarian government in one country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of socialism. The main task of socialism – the organization of socialist production – still remains ahead. Can this task be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible. To overthrow the bourgeoisie, the efforts of one country are sufficient – the history of our revolution bears this out. For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia are insufficient. For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary ...

“Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution.” [28]

One must concede that the “characteristic features of the Leninist theory” are outlined here quite correctly. In the later editions of Stalin’s book this passage was altered to read in just the opposite way and the “characteristic features of the Leninist theory” were proclaimed within a year as ... Trotskyism. The Seventh Plenum of the ECCI passed its decision, not on the basis of the 1924 edition but of the 1926 edition....

At the Eleventh Congress, that is, at the last Congress at which Lenin had the opportunity to speak to the party, he issued a timely warning that the party would have to undergo another test: "... a test to which we shall be put by the Russian and international market to which we are subordinated, with which we are connected and from which we cannot escape."...


“So long as our Soviet Republic [says Lenin] remains an isolated borderland surrounded by the entire capitalist world, so long will it be an absolutely ridiculous fantasy and utopianism to think of our complete economic independence and of the disappearance of any of our dangers.” [36]....


http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/index.htm

From The Third International After Lenin.

The commentary in between the quotations is Trotsky's.

The numbers in square brackets are references, in all but one instance, to Lenin's works. Details can be found at the above link.

You:


So your theory basically works so long as the counter-revolutionaries don't destroy you, which essentially means so long as they lie down and let you spread the revolution all over the place. This is in effect what you are saying, whether you like it or not. If you cannot survive the counter-revolution and the physical destruction of your forces, your theory is worthless.

No, the theory says (and I'm not surprised I have to explain basic Marxism to an ML-er!) that a workers' revolution will fail unless it is led by the vast majority of the working class, and that did not happen in 1917-23, since the working class (already a minority in Russia, anyway) had been decimated by WW1, before the revolution began, or in Paris in 1870, because the majority of the working class (in France) wasn't involved.


You say spread the revolution or die- great, what happens when it stalls out as it did in 1918? Everyone just sits on their hands and starves?

It must die, unless you believe in the 'triumph of the will', and thus abandon materialism.

Which is, of course, what Lenin argued -- see the above quotes.

[AmericanRed]

Recommended reading on Mao's China, from various Marxist anti-Stalinist and anti-Maoist points of view:

"On the shortfalls and brutalities of rural Maoism: a response to William H. Hinton," Monthly Review, Jan. 1990, by Hugh Deane: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n8_v41/ai_8340817/ (http://findarticles.com/p/search/?qa=Hugh%20Deane)

Wang Fanxi, "The Stalinist State in China: The Social Meaning of Mao Tse-tung’s Victory": http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext29/Wang.html (http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext29/Wang.html)

The writings of Peng Shuzi: http://www.marxists.org/archive/peng/index.htm

Nigel Harris, The Mandate of Heaven: http://www.marxists.de/china/harris/index.htm

[The Vegan Marxist]

Contrast this with the way that, say, the Nepalese population rose in 2006:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/strike1601.jpg-for-web-NORMAL.jpg

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/strike2006.jpg

Contrast the above with this:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/USSR.jpg

Dramatic Scenes From The Former USSR In 1991, Showing The Massed Ranks Of Workers Defending 'Their' State

[Yes, it's supposed to be blank!]


How is this even a valid argument?

And also, let me ask, because I'm not too sure, are you a Communist or a Capitalist? Because you like to attack Maoism based on it's failed attempts, yet no Communist ideology has been able to have 100% success, so how could you attack Maoism, & yet show support for your own as well?

[Muzk]

yet no Communist ideology has been able to have 100% success, so how could you attack Maoism, & yet show support for your own as well?

Maoism has a 100% success rate at rushing to capitalism

[red cat]

Maoism has a 100% success rate at rushing to capitalism

As far as I know, the liberated zones of India, the Philippines and Nepal are witnessing worker and peasants' democracy at local levels. So your calculations need to be a little altered.

By the way, Trot revolutions are the ones that have a 100% success rate at rushing to capitalism. Since there was no Trot revolution ever, this statement is vacuously true, but true nevertheless. :)

As a matter a fact, Trots also have a 100% success rate at getting caught after they launch conspiracies against Marxist-Leninist or Maoist states. Congratulations for that. :thumbup1:

[Muzk]

By the way, Trot revolutions are the ones that have a 100% success rate at rushing to capitalism. Since there was no Trot revolution ever, this statement is vacuously true, but true nevertheless. :)

A giant noodle monster from Japan choked Mao Zedong till he died. Since there hasn't been a noodle monster, this statement is vacuosly true, but true nevertheless :)


As a matter a fact, Trots also have a 100% success rate at getting caught after they launch conspiracies against totalitarian conservative bureaocracies. Congratulations for that. Joke, I actually feel bad for the dead revolutionaries. By the way I make stuff up:thumbup1:
Fix'd.


As far as I know, the liberated zones of India, the Philippines and Nepal are witnessing worker and peasants' democracy at local levels. So your calculations need to be a little altered.

Hippy communes too. Let's see them run something as complex as a country

[red cat]

A giant noodle monster from Japan choked Mao Zedong till he died. Since there hasn't been a noodle monster, this statement is vacuosly true, but true nevertheless :)

FAIL. You involved a real person who died of other reasons. :tt2:


Fix'd.FAIL. Too coarse.




Hippy communes too. Let's see them run something as complex as a country ....FAIL (sigh). A portion of the Maoist CRZ in India consists of what would be independent countries without Maratha and British invasions, namely many Gond territories of Dandakaranya. By the way, the Indian CRZ probably exceeds Germany in size.

EDIT: Hippy communes too did/have what ?

[Muzk]

FAIL. No, you!


FAIL. Too coarse.
What's a coarse? Curse?



....FAIL (sigh). A portion of the Maoist CRZ in India consists of what would be independent countries without Maratha and British invasions, namely many Gond territories of Dandakaranya. By the way, the Indian CRZ probably exceeds Germany in size.
^What you said
v What I understood
blalbalblablalbaldasldsadidmsfimsdfimfdmgufdmg


EDIT: Hippy communes too did/have what ?
drugs and fun

[The Vegan Marxist]

drugs and fun

:thumbup1: :redstar2000:

[red cat]

Originally Posted by red cat http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1675706#post1675706)
FAIL. No, you!


FAIL. Too coarse. What's a coarse? Curse?


....FAIL (sigh). A portion of the Maoist CRZ in India consists of what would be independent countries without Maratha and British invasions, namely many Gond territories of Dandakaranya. By the way, the Indian CRZ probably exceeds Germany in size.^What you said
v What I understood
blalbalblablalbaldasldsadidmsfimsdfimfdmgufdmg


EDIT: Hippy communes too did/have what ? drugs and fun:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:



YOU WIN !!! I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE ! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I'll bet Rosa is green with envy by now.

:lol:

[Muzk]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:



YOU WIN !!! I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE ! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I'll bet Rosa is green with envy by now.

:lol:

Hah. Knew I could do it. I'm glad you admit it, though.

[Klashnekov]

BTPound, it all depends on whether you believe in socialism from above (Maoism, Stalinism, putchism, and various forms of bourgeois social democracy), or socialism from below (Leninism, Trotskyism and various forms of anarchism and/or anarcho-syndicalism).


That is completely ridiculous you Left-Communist Trotskyite Opptunist quacker!

Socialism from below or above has NOTHING to do with Leninism, Maoism or the so-called "Stalinism".

It is not the Political Doctrine of a Government that makes you a "Leninist" or a "Maoist". It is the theories these Individuals put forward and you adhold to that makes you a "Leninist" or a "Maoist"

I know many Trotskyites that strongly disagree with alot of Lenins political doctrine, yet they still claim to be a Leninist because of the theoies he put forward and they adhold to.

I even know Trotskyites that absolutly detest Lenin and deem it an insult to be described as a "Leninist", as they deem his support for developing "Socialism in One Country" incompatible with "Permanent Revolution".

The way you desribed "Socialism from above" to be Maoism was completely misleading to the Comrade that is looking for objective advise in defence of Mao.

Any rightous Moderation Team would send you an infraction for that discustingly misleading comment.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AK-47_Spelt_Wrong:


That is completely ridiculous you Left-Communist Trotskyite Opptunist quacker!

There are no 'Trotskyites' on this planet, so I do not know who you are talking about.


Socialism from below or above has NOTHING to do with Leninism, Maoism or the so-called "Stalinism".

Well, had you brought these sacred words down from off the mountain on stone tablets, signed by 'god', I think I'd be prepared to believe you, but unfortunately for you, you forget this minor detail; hence your word is not enough.

As Hal Draper points out, socialism from below is indeed what Marx and Lenin believed. In contrast, Stalin and Mao practised 'socialism' from above, and hence failed to deliver.


It is not the Political Doctrine of a Government that makes you a "Leninist" or a "Maoist". It is the theories these Individuals put forward and you adhold to that makes you a "Leninist" or a "Maoist"

Indeed, it's the theory and the practice a party adopts that does this, which makes what I said above a correct summary of the differences between genuine Marxism and the sort of top-down state/free market capitalism which is all that you MLM-ers end up delivering.


I know many Trotskyites that strongly disagree with alot of Lenins political doctrine, yet they still claim to be a Leninist because of the theoies he put forward and they adhold to.

I even know Trotskyites that absolutly detest Lenin and deem it an insult to be described as a "Leninist", as they deem his support for developing "Socialism in One Country" incompatible with "Permanent Revolution".

I do not know on which planet you met these 'Trotskyites', since, as I said, there are none on this one.

Are you sure you weren't abducted, experimented on, and returned with some rather odd ideas?


The way you described "Socialism from above" to be Maoism was completely misleading to the Comrade that is looking for objective advise in defence of Mao.

Again, you forgot to get 'god' to sign this dogmatic statement of yours, otherwise I'd have been happy to accept it.:(


Any righteous Moderation Team would send you an infraction for that discustingly misleading comment

And you for spamming us with tales of this no-existent tribe of 'Trotskyites'...:)

Have a nice fume...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


I'll bet Rosa is green with envy by now.

I will be when we see a successful, Maoist socialist state.:cool:

Too bad that will never happen.:(

[For reasons you have had explained to you...]

[ZeroNowhere]

That is completely ridiculous you Left-Communist Trotskyite Opptunist quacker! This was brilliant, more or less the Revleft equivalent of amusingly bad B-movies, but it still belongs in Chit-Chat rather than the Learning forum.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



I will be when we see a successful, Maoist socialist state.:cool:

Too bad that will never happen.:(

[For reasons you have had explained to you...]

Wow! You have started renaming users now ... :lol:

You don't understand who Trotskyites are, do you?

Trotskyite is what we anti-revisionists call your tribe of counter-revolutionaries who, following the example of Trotsky, have continued slandering revolutionaries ever since.

About the thread on Cantor's theorem, what proof are you talking about?
Have you been able to defend or even explain any of your counter-proofs to us? Have those spurious proofs been accepted in any standard conference or journal? Basically any self-respectless idiot can come up with stuff like that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Wow! You have started renaming users now ..

Been doing it for years.


You don't understand who Trotskyites are, do you?

Trotskyite is what we anti-revisionists call your tribe of counter-revolutionaries who, following the example of Trotsky, have continued slandering revolutionaries ever since.

Thanks for the description -- good job there are none of them on this planet.

Which planet did you find them on?


About the thread on Cantor's theorem, what proof are you talking about?
Have you been able to defend or even explain any of your counter-proofs to us? Have those spurious proofs been accepted in any standard conference or journal? Basically any self-respectless idiot can come up with stuff like that.

Why are you spamming this thread now?

[fatboy]

Lenin and Mao advanced Marxist theory.( Although Mao's 3 worlds theory was wrong imo.) Trotsky did not further advance the Marxist theory. Permanent Revolution my ass. Marx already spoke of continuing revolutions in the world. Mao and Stalin did not purposely isolate themselves ( to a certain extent) from the rest of the world. It was because other revolutions did not spark in other parts of the world except Germany for about a year.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for those superficial comments on Trotsky, however you might like to know that I have demolished Mao's theory of change in the Mao thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong-t121784/index.html

[fatboy]

Thanks for those superficial comments on Trotsky, however you might like to know that I have demolished Mao's theory of change in the Mao thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong-t121784/index.html
Is there any of Mao's theories you agree with?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Not a single one.:)