Is Socialism in one country possible? [Archive]

mykittyhasaboner

24th November 2009, 14:30

Comrade Pokoyev,

I am late in replying, for which I apologise to you and your comrades.

Unfortunately, you have not understood our disagreements at the Fourteenth Congress. The point was not at all that the opposition asserted that we had not yet arrived at socialism, while the congress held that we had already arrived at socialism. That is not true. You will not find a single member in our Party who would say that we have already achieved socialism.

That was not at all the subject of the dispute at the congress. The subject of the dispute was this. The congress held that the working class, in alliance with the labouring peasantry, can deal the finishing blow to the capitalists of our country and build a socialist society, even if there is no victorious revolution in the West to come to its aid. The opposition, on the contrary, held that we cannot deal the finishing blow to our capitalists and build a socialist society until the workers are victorious in the West. Well, as the victory of the revolution in the West is rather late in coming, nothing remains for us to do, apparently, but to loaf around. The congress held, and said so in its resolution on the report of the Central Committee [1], that these views of the opposition implied disbelief in victory over our capitalists.

That was the point at issue, dear comrades.

This, of course, does not mean that we do not need the help of the West-European workers. Suppose that the West-European workers did not sympathise with us and did not render us moral support. Suppose that the West-European workers did not prevent their capitalists from launching an attack upon our Republic. What would be the outcome? The outcome would be that the capitalists would march against us and radically disrupt our constructive work, if not destroy us altogether. If the capitalists are not attempting this, it is because they are afraid that if they were to attack our Republic, the workers would strike at them from the rear. That is what we mean when we say that the West-European workers are supporting our revolution.

But from the support of the workers of the West to the victory of the revolution in the West is a long, long way. Without the support of the workers of the West we could scarcely have held out against the enemies surrounding us. If this support should later develop into a victorious revolution in the West, well and good. Then the victory of socialism in our country will be final. But what if this support does not develop into a victory of the revolution in the West? If there is no such victory in the West, can we build a socialist society and complete the building of it? The congress answered that we can. Otherwise, there would have been no point in our taking power in October 1917. If we had not counted on giving the finishing blow to our capitalists, everyone will say that we had no business to take power in October 1917. The opposition, however, affirms that we cannot finish off our capitalists by our own efforts.

That is the difference between us.

There was also talk at the congress of the final victory of socialism. What does that mean? It means a full guarantee against the intervention of foreign capitalists and the restoration of the old order in our country as the result of an armed struggle by those capitalists against our country. Can we, by our own efforts, ensure this guarantee, that is, render armed intervention on the part of international capital impossible? No, we cannot. That is something to be done jointly by ourselves and the proletarians of the entire West. International capital can be finally curbed only by the efforts of the working class of all countries, or at least of the major European countries. For that the victory of the revolution in several European countries is indispensable—without it the final victory of socialism is impossible.

What follows then in conclusion?

It follows that we are capable of completely building a socialist society by our own efforts and without the victory of the revolution in the West, but that, by itself alone, our country cannot guarantee itself against encroachments by international capital—for that the victory of the revolution in several Western countries is needed. The possibility of completely building socialism in our country is one thing, the possibility of guaranteeing our country against encroachments by international capital is another.

In my opinion, your mistake and that of your comrades is that you have not yet found your way in this matter and have confused these two questions.

With comradely greetings,

J. Stalin

P. S. You should get hold of the Bolshevik [2] (of Moscow), No. 3, and read my article in it. It would make matters easier for you.

J. Stalin

February 10, 1926

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/02/10.htm

He writes about the concept again in 1938, in a letter to Ivanov (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm).

Rjevan

24th November 2009, 15:03

Is socialism in one country possible and why is it necessary? Is this theory true to Marxism? Or is a result of Stalinist opportunism? Use examples and citations if possible. Thanks.
Yes, socialism in one country is possible, as the USSR till the rise of revisionism proved. It is not necessary but very likely due to a very wide range of capitalist developements in various countries and it is childish and utopian to assume that the world has to wait till even the last country has reached the final stage of capitalism and till then every revolution is impossible and has to be condemned.

And for this theory being "Stalinist opportunism": definitely no, it was a necessity of that time and of the given circumstances, it was the only way that enabled the USSR to survive and develope. The theory of socialism in one country goes back to Lenin and since I know some people will heavily refute this as a gut reaction and shout stuff about "evindence for Stalin's national chauvinist character" and since you asked for quotes, here you are:

I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.
Funnily enough some people say this was "meant otherwise" and that Stalin misused this quote from a speech in 1918 to justify socialism in one country while Lenin in no way intended to do that. Good that I am told that he "meant this otherwise" because in 1915 he wrote this, which should answer your question very well and could get one the impression that Lenin actually meant what he said in 1918 (emphasis by me):

Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states... A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states.
From On the Slogan for a United States of Europe (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm)

It really was just a fancy way for Stalin to justify the return to Russian nationalism.
Refuted above, besides it should be mentioned that Stalin was a Georgian and that Russian nationalism/chauvinism was something he actively fought.

Revy

24th November 2009, 15:21

Y
Refuted above, besides it should be mentioned that Stalin was a Georgian and that Russian nationalism/chauvinism was something he actively fought.

Here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/autonomy.htm) is what Lenin had to say on the matter.

The Georgian [Stalin] who is neglectful of this aspect of the question, or who carelessly flings about accusations of "nationalist-socialism" (whereas he himself is a real and true "nationalist-socialist", and even a vulgar Great-Russian bully), violates, in substance, the interests of proletarian class solidarity, for nothing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so much as national injustice; "offended" nationals are not sensitive to anything so much as to the feeling of equality and the violation of this equality, if only through negligence or jest- to the violation of that equality by their proletarian comrades. That is why in this case it is better to over-do rather than undergo the concessions and leniency towards the national minorities. That is why, in this case, the fundamental interest of proletarian class struggle, requires that we never adopt a formal attitude to the national question, but always take into account the specific attitude of the proletarian of the oppressed (or small) nation towards the oppressor (or great) nation.As the Marxist Internet Archive says when writing on the concept of "socialism in one country"

A foundation of the Stalinist political theory, introduced for the first time in 1924, after Lenin's death. The theory was in direct opposition to the Bolshevik (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/b/o.htm#bolshevik) theory that the success of the Russian Revolution depended on proletarian revolutions in Europe. The Stalinist theory stipulated that a socialist society could be achieved inside a single country. Later, when it was incorporated into the program and tactics of the Comintern, it became the justification for the domination of Russia in the proletarian revolution: claiming that the Soviet Union (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/u/n.htm#ussr) was the leader of the International proletariat.
Further Reading: Russian critiques of this theory: Vladimir Lenin, Question on Nationalities (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/autonomy.htm); Leon Trotsky, The Third International After Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/index.htm) .)

red cat

24th November 2009, 15:32

What has the opinion of the MIA got to do with it? It is Trot anyway. So we already know what its stand will be.

Dimentio

24th November 2009, 15:35

It depends on the size of said country. If its a country the size of a small planet, like Canada, Russia, the USA, China or Australia, it could work. If its in Bhutan, Belgium or North Korea, it won't.

bailey_187

24th November 2009, 17:07

"the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie. " - Karl Marx - Communist manifesto

bailey_187

24th November 2009, 17:10

Here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/autonomy.htm) is what Lenin had to say on the matter.

That is in reference to the dispute over the minority nations of the USSR, not about building Socialism in the USSR.

Revy

24th November 2009, 18:21

That is in reference to the dispute over the minority nations of the USSR, not about building Socialism in the USSR.

You're not even following what led to that post. I said that "socialism in one country" was used as an excuse for a Russian nationalist policy where Russia dominated the Soviet Union.

bailey_187

24th November 2009, 18:49

You're not even following what led to that post. I said that "socialism in one country" was used as an excuse for a Russian nationalist policy where Russia dominated the Soviet Union.

Oh, sorry.

More Fire for the People

24th November 2009, 18:52

Not necessary but possible given the right amount of resources. Russia was capable of socialism in one country but not all countries can. One of Stalin's fundamental errors was the belief that socialism must be first developed in Russia and that other revolutionary states serve the purpose of accelerating this process.

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th November 2009, 18:55

Soviet:

It has not.The world had a great change under the influense of first socialist states.

They are no longer socialist states (if they ever were); so history has indeed refuted the idea -- unless you think they are still socialist!

Anyway,what alternative was in 1920s?Only capitulation.Thanks a lot.

As soon as the revolution failed to spread, it was doomed -- whatever the good (or bad) intentions of the decaying Bolshevik party might or might not have been.

Unless, of course, you think that by an act of will capitalism can be vanquished...

Das war einmal

24th November 2009, 19:06

^^^Unfortunately, history has refuted that idea.

And many times, too -- in the former USSR, E Europe, China...

In that perspective, history has proven many times that Trotskyism has been refuted as well.

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th November 2009, 20:41

Red Resistance:

In that perspective, history has proven many times that Trotskyism has been refuted as well.

Well, certainly not the internationalist aspect, which is what is under the microscope here.

And, since we haven't yet witnessed a Trotskyist state, but we have witnessed Maoist and Stalinist states, my point still stands.

bailey_187

24th November 2009, 20:52

And, since we haven't yet witnessed a Trotskyist state, but we have witnessed Maoist and Stalinist states, my point still stands.

Your Trotskyist state and world revolution is on the horizon* though, i am sure

*Definiton of Horizon: An imaginery line that moves further away the closer you get

Das war einmal

24th November 2009, 21:02

Red Resistance:

Well, certainly not the internationalist aspect, which is what is under the microscope here.

And, since we haven't yet witnessed a Trotskyist state, but we have witnessed Maoist and Stalinist states, my point still stands.

So according to this point, history has refuted trotskyism even more than 'stalinism' or maoism?

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th November 2009, 21:03

Bailey:

Your Trotskyist state and world revolution is on the horizon* though, i am sure

Maybe so, maybe not, but one thing we do know for certain is that the idea that socialism can be created in one county has been refuted by history.

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th November 2009, 21:05

Red Resistance:

So according to this point, history has refuted trotskyism even more than 'stalinism' or maoism?

History can't refute something that hasn't been tried yet. But, since Maoism and Stalinism have been tried out, and many times, and refuted each time by history, the message is reasonably clear.

Rjevan

24th November 2009, 21:10

Here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/autonomy.htm) is what Lenin had to say on the matter.
From W.B. Bland's "Lenin's Testament (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv7n2/blandlt.htm)":

Lenin did not write the document known as ‘Lenin’s Testament’, it was in fact dictated by Lenin to one of his secretaries, Lidya Fotieva. However its authenticity has never been challenged
...
March 1922, at the 11th Congress of the Russian Communist Party, Lenin was defending Stalin against criticism from Yevgeny Preobrazhensky over the fact that Stalin held the posts of both People’s Commissar of Nationalities and People’s Commissar of State Control:
‘The ‘Turkestan, Caucasian and other questions… are all political questions! They have to be settled. These are questions that have engaged the attention of European states for hundreds of years… We are settling them; and we need a man to whom the representatives of any of these nations can go and discuss their difficulties in all detail. Where can we find such a man? I don’t think Comrade Preobrazhensky could suggest any better candidate than Comrade Stalin... The same thing applies to the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection. This is a vast business; but to be able to handle investigations we must have at the head of it a man who enjoys high prestige, otherwise we shall become submerged in and overwhelmed by petty intrigue’.

Indeed, it was on Lenin’s proposal that in April 1922, after the Congress, the Central Committee elected Stalin to the highest post in the Party – that of General Secretary:
‘On Lenin’s motion, the Plenum of the Central Committee, on April 3 1922, elected Stalin... General Secretary of the Central Committee’
...
It is fanciful for some Soviet historians, official and unofficial, to suggest that Stalin was not Lenin’s personal choice for the post of General Secretary of the Central Committee to which he was elevated in April 1922

As the Marxist Internet Archive says when writing on the concept of "socialism in one country"
Stalin wrote dozens of works on the National Question and he was an outspoken enemy of "Greater Russian chauvinism" and speaking of MIA:

Stalin’s report, and the Congress resolution, gave a clear and precise formulation of the basic practical measures needed to solve the national problem. National oppression had been abolished, Stalin declared, but that was not enough. The evil heritage of the past had to be abolished—the economic, political and cultural backwardness of the formerly oppressed peoples; they had to be helped to catch up with Central Russia. Stalin called upon the Party to combat dominant-nation chauvinism, Great-Russian chauvinism, which was the chief danger, and likewise local nationalism.
...
[Stalin] called upon the Party to put up a determined fight against Great-Russian chauvinism and local nationalism, which had gained ground with the partial revival of capitalism. He denounced the Georgian nationalist deviators, who were being supported by the Trotskyites.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/biographies/1947/stalin/07.htm

Das war einmal

24th November 2009, 21:51

Red Resistance:

History can't refute something that hasn't been tried yet. But, since Maoism and Stalinism have been tried out, and many times, and refuted each time by history, the message is reasonably clear.

Ah so in truth Trotskyist need to shut it because they have not proven anything at all yet, even their theories have not yet been put to the test, right? Btw isnt a trotskyist state a contradiction?

In retrospect you can say that maoist and leninist states have been successful if you compare them with capitalist countries with the same starting position. So that would proof that history has not refuted these states at all.

By the way, shouldn't you look at more circumstances apart from the fact that these countries were ruled by a communist party before you conclude that 'stalinist and maoist ruled countries have detariorated THUS they have been refuted by history'?

Das war einmal

24th November 2009, 21:56

Bailey:

Maybe so, maybe not, but one thing we do know for certain is that the idea that socialism can be created in one county has been refuted by history.

But after WW2 socialism wasn't in one country anymore, in fact two decades later socialism deteriorated whereas when the Soviet Union (before ww2) stood alone the country was still getting more progressive in terms of social-economic statistics. As a matter of fact, just before the total collapse of socialism in the eastern block (and several other 3rd world countries) there were more socialist states (or as you probably would rather like to hear, countries run by a communist party) then ever before.

red cat

24th November 2009, 22:02

Red Resistance:

History can't refute something that hasn't been tried yet. But, since Maoism and Stalinism have been tried out, and many times, and refuted each time by history, the message is reasonably clear.Creating and consolidating socialism is a complicated tasks, and will require the proletariat to learn from a number of failures before its ultimate success.

By your logic, a person who eats and sleeps all day is much more efficient than a man who works, because the former won't make any mistakes.

Maoists have failed so many times just because they tried. Trots, on the other hand, have never but once tried to really make a revolution. And the only time they succeeded in making some significant progress in challenging the state through armed struggle, they turned Maoist. This, I think, clarifies a lot.

Das war einmal

24th November 2009, 22:06

In the Netherlands we have this saying and literally translated it means this

'The best seamen stand ashore'

Meaning you hear the most critique from the people who never actually do or achieve anything at all.

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th November 2009, 22:09

Red Resistance:

Ah so in truth Trotskyist need to shut it because they have not proven anything at all yet, even their theories have not yet been put to the test, right? Btw isnt a trotskyist state a contradiction?

Well, we can speculate all week about the alleged failings of Trotskyism, but we needn't speculate for one second about the fact that the claim that socialism can be built in one country has been refuted, not by me and not by Trotsky, but by history, and many times over.

In retrospect you can say that maoist and leninist states have been successful if you compare them with capitalist countries with the same starting position. So that would proof that history has not refuted these states at all.

Success is not in question here (certainly not be me); what is up for grabs is whether socialism can be built in one country -- history has delivered its unambiguous verdict: No.

By the way, shouldn't you look at more circumstances apart from the fact that these countries were ruled by a communist party before you conclude that 'stalinist and maoist ruled countries have detariorated THUS they have been refuted by history'?

Well, these socialist states no longer exist, so you draw the obvious conclusion.

It's not that difficult...

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th November 2009, 22:15

Red Cat:

Creating and consolidating socialism is a complicated tasks, and will require the proletariat to learn from a number of failures before its ultimate success.

That is speculation; what is fact is that these allegedly socialist states have failed.

And, never mind what the proleteriat should or shouldn't learn from this, you should learn the lesson that the idea that socialism can be built in one counrty has been refuted by history.

No doubt the proletariat will also learn not to trust those who say it can.

By your logic, a person who eats and sleeps all day is much more efficient than a man who works, because the former won't make any mistakes.

Eh? :confused:

Maoists have failed so many times just because they tried. Trots, on the other hand, have never but once tried to really make a revolution. And the only time they succeeded in making some significant progress in challenging the state through armed struggle, they turned Maoist. This, I think, clarifies a lot.

As I said to Red Resistance, we can speculate all week about the alleged failings of Trotskyism, but one thing is for sure: the idea that socialism can be created in one country has been refuted by history, and many times over.

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th November 2009, 22:18

Red Resistance:

Meaning you hear the most critique from the people who never actually do or achieve anything at all.

Intersting saying.

Can we now have the results of the detailed sociological survey that supports its truth?

Das war einmal

24th November 2009, 22:18

Red Resistance:

Well, we can speculate all week about the alleged failings of Trotskyism, but we needn't speculate for one second about the fact that the claim that socialism can be built in one country has been refuted, not by me and not by Trotsky, but by history, and many times over.

Success is not in question here (certainly not be me); what is up for grabs is whether socialism can be built in one country -- history has delivered its unambiguous verdict: No.

Well, these socialist states no longer exist, so you draw the obvious conclusion.

It's not that difficult...

Your explanation is flawed. I shall not deny that there were many wrongs in socialist countries and that in certain aspects there indeed was outright failure. Then again, history in fact points out that socialism really DID work in these countries.

There were many healthy and successful companies and organizations who dont exist any longer today. There could be hundreds of thousands of reasons why these no longer exists, change of management for example. It is however, plain wrong to simply say that history has refuted the working of these organizations.

For example, there are many companies who work perfectly well on their own, the opponent companies can buy this company, strip it of its capital and leave it to rot. (A common practice actually) The company on its own was healthy but outside influences have destroyed it. The employees of this company lose their job and their decent living standard

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th November 2009, 22:22

Red Resistance:

But after WW2 socialism wasn't in one country anymore, in fact two decades later socialism deteriorated whereas when the Soviet Union (before ww2) stood alone the country was still getting more progressive in terms of social-economic statistics. As a matter of fact, just before the total collapse of socialism in the eastern block (and several other 3rd world countries) there were more socialist states (or as you probably would rather like to hear, countries run by a communist party) then ever before.

Well this is even worse news, for if socialism can't succedd in several countries, then it is hardly likely to survive in just one.

You are in a hole here comrade; my advice is: stop digging...

[In fact, this only confirms the view that unless the revolution is world-wide (or takes in the majority of the advanced capitalist states), it cannot succeed.]

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th November 2009, 22:27

Red Resistance:

Your explanation is flawed. I shall not deny that there were many wrongs in socialist countries and that in certain aspects there indeed was outright failure. Then again, history in fact points out that socialism really DID work in these countries.

But it failed in the end; so it can't work in just one, or a few, countries.

And I gave no explanation, as you allege; I just described the facts and drew the obvious conclusion -- the one you are desperately trying to avoid.

There were many healthy and successful companies and organizations who dont exist any longer today. There could be hundreds of thousands of reasons why these no longer exists, change of management for example. It is however, plain wrong to simply say that history has refuted the working of these organizations.

For example, there are many companies who work perfectly well on their own, the opponent companies can buy this company, strip it of its capital and leave it to rot. (A common practice actually) The company on its own was healthy but outside influences have destroyed it. The employees of this company lose their job and their decent living standard

I'm not sure what this has got to do with the topic of this thread, since no one is claiming that capitalism can work in only one (or several) companies.

But, nice try at deflecting attention from your plight.

Only it wasn't...

Das war einmal

24th November 2009, 22:33

Red Resistance:

Well this is even worse news, for if socialism can't succedd in several countries, then it is hardly likely to survive in just one.

You are in a hole here comrade; my advice is: stop digging...

[In fact, this only confirms the view that unless the revolution is world-wide (or takes in the majority of the advanced capitalist states), it cannot succeed.]

No I dont think you quite understand me as I was countering your point. the progression of socialism (at least in the terms of socio-economic development) was succeeding when there was socialism in only one country.

To be clear I dont think communism can be achieved in one country alone. However socialist measures can be maintained even if other countries are still following the capitalist model. This does not automatically mean that history has 'proven' that socialism in one state, or several states, is refuted. If anything, history has proven that socialism in one country has worked and when it dissapeared the situation in these countries went backwards.

red cat

24th November 2009, 22:33

Red Cat:

That is speculation; what is fact is that these allegedly socialist states have failed.

And, never mind what the proleteriat should or shouldn't learn from this, you should learn the lesson that the idea that socialism can be built in one counrty has been refuted by history.

No doubt the proletariat will also learn not to trust those who say it can.

Eh? :confused:

As I said to Red Resistance, we can speculate all week about the alleged failings of Trotskyism, but one thing is for sure: the idea that socialism can be created in one country has been refuted by history, and many times over.Didn't understand the previous example? Try to substitute the men with tendencies.

According to your logic, the idea of long human-flight had also been refuted by history, and so were any attempt to proving the four-colour theorem or cloning. But we succeeded in doing all this.

While you claim that something has been refuted by history, it is also your responsibility to propose and succeed in implementing something better, or at least to get recognized by someone who has done the same.

Weezer

24th November 2009, 22:38

I believe it's possible.

That doesn't mean I want such a nationalist ideology running rampant in socialist countries.

Das war einmal

24th November 2009, 22:38

Red Resistance:

But it failed in the end; so it can't work in just one, or a few, countries.

And I gave no explanation, as you allege; I just described the facts and drew the obvious conclusion -- the one you are desperately trying to avoid.

I'm not sure what this has got to do with the topic of this thread, since no one is claiming that capitalism can work in only one (or several) companies.

But, nice try at deflecting attention from your plight.

Only it wasn't...

The example was not about capitalism but about your explanation that something does not work because it eventually went down. Because it did work but due to a certain circumstance(s) it deteriorated. I could also pick an example of nature: a healthy strong creature might get sick, not because it is weak but because it received an alien disease. (for example lots of native americans died when they were infected by European brought flu)

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th November 2009, 22:43

Red Resistance:

No I dont think you quite understand me as I was countering your point. the progression of socialism (at least in the terms of socio-economic development) was succeeding when there was socialism in only one country.

And yet it failed. So, the claim that socialism cannot be created in one country is correct.

Recall, we are not debating the thesis "Can the progression toward socialism be created in one country?"

You can start another thread on that if you want.

To be clear I dont think communism can be achieved in one country alone. However socialist measures can be maintained even if other countries are still following the capitalist model. This does not automatically mean that history has 'proven' that socialism in one state, or several states, is refuted. If anything, history has proven that socialism in one country has worked and when it dissapeared the situation in these countries went backwards.

Well, naturally, you are entitled to your view, but it has nothing to do with the fact that history has refuted the claim that socialism can be created in one country.

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th November 2009, 22:50

Red Cat:

Didn't understand the previous example? Try to substitute the men with tendencies.

No, still no help. Perhaps you need to stop being enigmatic.

According to your logic, the idea of long human-flight had also been refuted by history, and so were any attempt to proving the four-colour theorem or cloning. But we succeeded in doing all this.

Well, this is all speculation, and you may be right about the endeavours you mention. But, one thing we needn't speculate about is whether socialism can be created in one country, since that idea has been refuted by history, not just once, but many times.

Now, I recognise that you won't learn from this, but us Marxists have.

While you claim that something has been refuted by history, it is also your responsibility to propose and succeed in implementing something better, or at least to get recognized by someone who has done the same.

No need to; Marx came up with one many years ago:

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

Not Maoist guerillas or the red army...

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th November 2009, 22:54

RedResistance:

The example was not about capitalism but about your explanation that something does not work because it eventually went down. Because it did work but due to a certain circumstance(s) it deteriorated. I could also pick an example of nature: a healthy strong creature might get sick, not because it is weak but because it received an alien disease. (for example lots of native americans died when they were infected by European brought flu)

Well, and once more: I gave no explanation!

All I did was point out hat the idea that socialism can be built in one country has been refuted by history, and many times.

red cat

24th November 2009, 23:03

Red Cat:

No, still no help. Perhaps you need to stop being enigmatic. Perhaps you need to think about it a little more.

Well, this is all speculation, and you may be right about the endeavours you mention. But, one thing we needn't speculate about is whether socialism can be created in one country, since that idea has been refuted by history, not just once, but many times.Every endeavour I mentioned had also been "refuted" many times.

Now, I recognise that you won't learn from this, but us Marxists have.

No need to; Marx came up with one many years ago:It is us who follow the Marxist line and develop it. While we are trying to make revolution throughout the last century, what have you, who oppose us succeeded in doing?

Not Maoist guerillas or the red army... The proletariat exercises class-leadership throughout the revolution. The Maoist guerrillas and the red army are under this leadership.

By the way, could you please take the trouble to mention how you propose to achieve a military victory over the bourgeoisie?

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th November 2009, 23:13

Red Cat:

Perhaps you need to think about it a little more.

Done it -- no good.

Every endeavour I mentioned had also been "refuted" many times.

So has the idea that there can be a perpetual motion machine.

It is us who follow the Marxist line and develop it. While we are trying to make revolution throughout the last century, what have you, who oppose us succeeded in doing?

We may, or may not, have 'succeeded' in doing nothing, or indeed its opposite, but that does not affect the fact that history has refuted the idea that socialism can be created in one country.

And you can't be following Marx if you ignore this:

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

You:

The proletariat exercises class-leadership throughout the revolution. The Maoist guerrillas and the red army are under this leadership.

But the proletariat had no hand in the revolution (except as passive observers). So this is just Maoist fantasy.

By the way, could you please take the trouble to mention how you propose to achieve a military victory over the bourgeoisie?

I don't.

But, anyway, what I do or do not propose has nothing to do with the fact that history has refuted the idea that socialism can be built in one country.

red cat

24th November 2009, 23:26

Red Cat:

Done it -- no good. Then let's forget it.

So has the idea that there can be a perpetual motion machine.

But then, look at how much science has achieved by using the laws of thermodynamics in practice. What have you guys achieved ?

We may, or may not, have 'succeeded' in doing nothing, or indeed its opposite, but that does not affect the fact that history has refuted the idea that socialism can be created in one country. Include airplanes and cloning too in your list.

And you can't be following Marx if you ignore this:

You:

But the proletariat had no hand in the revolution (except as passive observers). So this is just Maoist fantasy.
It is a fact that imperialism in the present era can be defeated only by the proletariat exercising class-leadership upon the revolution.

There were city insurrections by which the workers took power. And trade union movements too.

I don't.Then how exactly is the proletariat supposed to emancipate itself?

But, anyway, what I do or do not propose has nothing to do with the fact that history has refuted the idea that socialism can be built in one country....and airplanes and clones.

Das war einmal

24th November 2009, 23:37

RedResistance:

Well, and once more: I gave no explanation!

All I did was point out hat the idea that socialism can be built in one country has been refuted by history, and many times.

How can you point out something if you give no examples? How are we gonna believe you then? Or do you think that repeating a seemingly false sentence makes it true?

So has the idea that there can be a perpetual motion machine.

Yes but atleast they explain why, not only because history refuted it.

One last thing for this evening: this is the learning thread, so if you feel the urge to advocate something its decent to give an explanation

sanpal

25th November 2009, 01:02

sanpal

Couldn't you suppose that your conclusion about original cause is false? The cause is duhringism in economic model of socialism of the USSR and others and " ... history has refuted that idea" right after Engels.

I'm sorry, but I do not understand what you have posted.

One kid looks at the swinging trees and blowing wind and does a false conclusion: Why the wind is blowing? Oh, I know, it does so because the trees are swinging.
There is a historic fact: Socialism in the former USSR and other socialist countries has failed. Some revlefters who consider him/herself just as a "true theorists" nevertheless make false conclusion: Oh, I know it was so because Socialism in one country is not possible. But the basic error in the building of new society was in an other sphere - in economy, and more exactly - in the market economy the attributes of which has let to be existed: the state bank, paper money with "gold contents", wages, shops, paid service, etc. In the same time in maximum degrees the free market economy was prohibited: there was state monopoly on the prices (GOSCOMTSEN), on the cost of labour power, none had to have the means of production in personal using (though it's difficult to separate some household goods from means of production), etc.
And the ideology of communism was propagated everywhere from initial school right up to high school, university, enterprises, (till the grave) what contradicted with market ideology which was raised up on the market relations contrary to the State prohibition. Exactly this model of economy complies to the mr. Duhring's Utopian economic model which was criticized by Engels in his work "Anti-Duhring". Failing of the USSR and the countries of socialist camp was only a result of the anomalous market relations, of those abuses which mr. Duhring and then J.Stalin applied toward the real money.

Note: just communism is possible in one country, in economic sector, and even in separate enterprise, because communism is "relations".

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th November 2009, 03:13

Red Cat:

But then, look at how much science has achieved by using the laws of thermodynamics in practice. What have you guys achieved ?

What has what we have or have not done got to do with the fat that history has refuted the idea that socialism can be created in one country?

Include airplanes and cloning too in your list.

What list?

It is a fact that imperialism in the present era can be defeated only by the proletariat exercising class-leadership upon the revolution.

There were city insurrections by which the workers took power. And trade union movements too.

But what has this got to do with anything I said?

Then how exactly is the proletariat supposed to emancipate itself?

Don't you know any Leninism?

...and airplanes and clones.

Repeating something irrelevant does not suddenly make it relevant, no matter how many dots you put at the beginning...

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th November 2009, 03:18

Red Resistance:

How can you point out something if you give no examples? How are we gonna believe you then? Or do you think that repeating a seemingly false sentence makes it true?

1) I gave examples.

2) I don't care what you believe.

3) Slightly less than you seem to.

Yes but at least they explain why, not only because history refuted it.

Us Marxists have explained why; I just haven't done so here.

One last thing for this evening: this is the learning thread, so if you feel the urge to advocate something its decent to give an explanation

I fail to see what 'decency' has to do with anything.

Sugar Hill Kevis

25th November 2009, 03:18

The theory of autarky has proven to be unsustainable, historically it's nearly universally required conquest to try and prop itself up. Which is kind of a misnomer.

I suppose you could use N. Korea as an example of a non-expansionist country which claims to be trying to achieve autarky. But they receive a fair bit of aid from China and I wouldn't exactly say it's "working" anyway, although I give it within 5 posts someone contradicts me here...

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th November 2009, 03:23

Sanpal:

One kid looks at the swinging trees and blowing wind and does a false conclusion: Why the wind is blowing? Oh, I know, it does so because the trees are swinging.
There is a historic fact: Socialism in the former USSR and other socialist countries has failed. Some revlefters who consider him/herself just as a "true theorists" nevertheless make false conclusion: Oh, I know it was so because Socialism in one country is not possible. But the basic error in the building of new society was in an other sphere - in economy, and more exactly - in the market economy the attributes of which has let to be existed: the state bank, paper money with "gold contents", wages, shops, paid service, etc. In the same time in maximum degrees the free market economy was prohibited: there was state monopoly on the prices (GOSCOMTSEN), on the cost of labour power, none had to have the means of production in personal using (though it's difficult to separate some household goods from means of production), etc.
And the ideology of communism was propagated everywhere from initial school right up to high school, university, enterprises, (till the grave) what contradicted with market ideology which was raised up on the market relations contrary to the State prohibition. Exactly this model of economy complies to the mr. Duhring's Utopian economic model which was criticized by Engels in his work "Anti-Duhring". Failing of the USSR and the countries of socialist camp was only a result of the anomalous market relations, of those abuses which mr. Duhring and then J.Stalin applied toward the real money.

Well, you can slice this any way you like, but the bottom line is that history has refuted the idea that socialism can be created in one country.

Get over it...

red cat

25th November 2009, 03:38

Red Cat:

What has what we have or have not done got to do with the fat that history has refuted the idea that socialism can be created in one country?

What list?

According to your logic, the ideas of making airplanes or cloning had also been refuted by history.

But what has this got to do with anything I said?

You said this:

But the proletariat had no hand in the revolution (except as passive observers). So this is just Maoist fantasy.

This claim is false.

Don't you know any Leninism? Not your interpretations at least. Please let me know how workers in the third world are supposed to emancipate themselves.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th November 2009, 04:06

Red Cat:

According to your logic, the ideas of making airplanes or cloning had also been refuted by history.

Not so. Since it was always theoretically possible for us to fly and/or clone other organisms (once the relevant theories had been developed), the failure to do so at the first attempts did not refute the theory.

In the case of socialism in one country, there are theoretical reasons (which you no doubt reject) why socialism in one country is not possible.

Now we can debate this theory all week, and still disagree, but the fact that history has refuted the contention that socialism can be created in one country turns this into a factual not a theoretical debate.

And this is especially so since history has refuted it more than once; in fact, in at least twelve countries (the former USSR, Poland, E Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania, China, Vietnam, Cambodia), and possibly more (Cuba and N Korea -- are they about to go the same way too? Theory suggests they are. So we'll see).

Is this just bad luck, or is history trying to tell you that Trotsky's analysis was correct?

Much as that might stick in your throat.

This claim is false.

No it's not.

Not your interpretations at least. Please let me know how workers in the third world are supposed to emancipate themselves.

Check this out:

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

red cat

25th November 2009, 04:18

Red Cat:

Not so. Since it was always theoretically possible for us to fly and/or clone other organisms (once the relevant theories had been developed), the failure to do so at the first attempts did not refute the theory.

In the case of socialism in one country, there are theoretical reasons (which you no doubt reject) why socialism in one country is not possible.

Now we can debate this theory all week, and still disagree, but the fact that history has refuted the contention that socialism can be created in one country turns this into a factual not a theoretical debate.

And this is especially so since history has refuted it more than once; in fact, in at least twelve countries (the former USSR, Poland, E Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania, China, Vietnam, Cambodia), and possibly more (Cuba and N Korea -- are they about to go the same way too? Theory suggests they are. So we'll see).

Is this just bad luck, or is history trying to tell you that Trotsky's analysis was correct?

Much as that might stick in your throat.
Your concept of "theory" is somewhat flawed. Every theory concerning the real world is based on some facts. And a theory can be wrong due to two reasons; either the facts which it is based on are incorrect, or the logic involved is flawed, or both. And there is no valid theory that proves SIOC to be wrong.

No it's not.

I showed that it is.

Check this out:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1963/xx/permrev.htmSorry. Too big to be read outside the MLM works. Please summarize.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th November 2009, 06:30

Red Cat:

Your concept of "theory" is somewhat flawed. Every theory concerning the real world is based on some facts. And a theory can be wrong due to two reasons; either the facts which it is based on are incorrect, or the logic involved is flawed, or both. And there is no valid theory that proves SIOC to be wrong

What 'concept of theory' is this? I did not express any 'concept' of a theory.

And, I did say we would disagree on this. Perhaps you can tell us why Trotsky's theory is invalid.

So, in the absence of a more detailed and/or satisfactory response from you, these comments of mine still stand:

Now we can debate this theory all week, and still disagree, but the fact that history has refuted the contention that socialism can be created in one country turns this into a factual not a theoretical debate.

And this is especially so since history has refuted it more than once; in fact, in at least twelve countries (the former USSR, Poland, E Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania, China, Vietnam, Cambodia), and possibly more (Cuba and N Korea -- are they about to go the same way too? Theory suggests they are. So we'll see).

Is this just bad luck, or is history trying to tell you that Trotsky's analysis was correct?

You:

I showed that it is.

You certainly asserted it, but an assertion is not a proof.

Sorry. Too big to be read outside the MLM works. Please summarize.

It's very short compared to the vast majority of Mao's works, but if you can't be bothered to read it, then you will have to remain ignorant, won't you?

red cat

25th November 2009, 19:08

Red Cat:

What 'concept of theory' is this? I did not express any 'concept' of a theory.

You seem to differentiate between theory and facts.

And, I did say we would disagree on this. Perhaps you can tell us why Trotsky's theory is invalid.The development of the MLM line has been justified by successful practice in each stage. The Paris Commune showed that we can defeat the bourgeoisie atleast for a short time.

The USSR showed that dictatorship of the proletariat is a valid theory. It Also showed that SIOC is valid for a country like Russia. The USSR failed due to lack of application of the mass-line.

The PRC showed that communists can conduct NDR and then a socialist revolution. So the theory of revolution in two stagees is also valid.

On the other hand, whatever "proof" that Trots have got is nothing but twisting the reasons of the failure of communists; not any constructive work of their own. This is enough for us to regard Trotskyism as invalid. Also, the only Trot group that made any progress in making revolution had become Maoist. It indicates that MLM is the only way out so far.

So, in the absence of a more detailed and/or satisfactory response from you, these comments of mine still stand:

You:

You certainly asserted it, but an assertion is not a proof.
My claims once again:

It is a fact that imperialism in the present era can be defeated only by the proletariat exercising class-leadership upon the revolution.

There were city insurrections by which the workers took power. And trade union movements too.
How is this an assertion?

It's very short compared to the vast majority of Mao's works, but if you can't be bothered to read it, then you will have to remain ignorant, won't you?

I prefer to remain ignorant of theory that is good for nothing. I would rather stick to works of MLM.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th November 2009, 21:34

Red Cat, now:

You seem to differentiate between theory and facts.

Red Cat, earlier:

Every theory concerning the real world is based on some facts.

So do you.

The development of the MLM line has been justified by successful practice in each stage.

Not at any stage. The Chinese revolution has gone backwards, so has the Russian revolution of 1917. Practically every former 'socialist' state has abandoned socialism and adopted some form of capitalism.

The Paris Commune showed that we can defeat the bourgeoisie at least for a short time.

Also a failure. Theory tested in practice -- practice refutes the theory.

The USSR showed that dictatorship of the proletariat is a valid theory. It Also showed that SIOC is valid for a country like Russia.

Yet another failure.

The USSR failed due to lack of application of the mass-line.

But, as we already know, the 'mass line' is in reality the 'mass lie':

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

It wasn't 'from the masses to the masses', but 'from the elite in the CCP to the masses'.

The PRC showed that communists can conduct NDR and then a socialist revolution. So the theory of revolution in two stages is also valid.

On the other hand, whatever "proof" that Trots have got is nothing but twisting the reasons of the failure of communists; not any constructive work of their own. This is enough for us to regard Trotskyism as invalid. Also, the only Trot group that made any progress in making revolution had become Maoist. It indicates that MLM is the only way out so far.

So, you can't provide us with a refutation of Trotsky's theory, but offer vague generalities in its place.

It is a fact that imperialism in the present era can be defeated only by the proletariat exercising class-leadership upon the revolution.

There were city insurrections by which the workers took power. And trade union movements too.

I agree, but this didn't happen in China.

How is this an assertion?

More to the point, how isn't it?

I prefer to remain ignorant of theory that is good for nothing. I would rather stick to works of MLM.

Spoken like a true believer; keep your head in the sand, then.

red cat

25th November 2009, 21:44

Red Cat, now:

Red Cat, earlier:

So do you. No. Theory and facts are interconnected.

Not at any stage. The Chinese revolution has gone backwards, so has the Russian revolution of 1917. Practically every former 'socialist' state has abandoned socialism and adopted some form of capitalism.

Also a failure. Theory tested in practice -- practice refutes the theory.

Yet another failure.

But, as we already know, the 'mass line' is in reality the 'mass lie':

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

It wasn't 'from the masses to the masses', but 'from the elite in the CCP to the masses'.

So, you can't provide us with a refutation of Trotsky's theory, but offer vague generalities in its place.

Not mass lie. More of a "trot lie". And Trotskyism is actually the thing that has been refuted by history, for its followers have failed to stage a single revolution so far.

I agree, but this didn't happen in China.

More to the point, how isn't it?You are not aware of the urban movements. Also, which kind of imperialism do you think stayed in China after 1949?

Spoken like a true believer; keep your head in the sand, then. Let's see Trots making a revolution first.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th November 2009, 21:52

Red Cat:

Theory and facts are interconnected.

Can we see your proof of this controversial claim?

Not mass lie. More of a "trot lie". And Trotskyism is actually the thing that has been refuted by history, for its followers have failed to stage a single revolution so far.

1) You clearly failed to read the link I posted where I show that you lot have no evidence that the 'mass lie' came from the masses.

2) And you lot have staged only failed revolutions, ignoring the proof that socialism in one country is not possible -- and now you compound this by ignoring the practice that confirms it is not possible.

As I said: heads in the sand.

You are not aware of the urban movements.

They did not play a significant part in the transfer of power

Also, which kind of imperialism do you think stayed in China after 1949?

Why are you asking me this? I have already accepted that this was a temporarily successful anti-imperialist revolution.

Let's see Trots making a revolution first.

Let's see you lot make a successful revolution.

Blackice

26th November 2009, 19:22

It would be successful if that country had everything what it would ever need in its' territory. Unfortunately, that is only valid for Utopia which does not exist. But it would be possible if we were one country united, as stated above.

syndicat

26th November 2009, 19:34

I think there are a number of things it would be useful to distinguish:

1. What led to the emergence of a new bureaucratic or techno-managerial exploiting class in the USSR?
2. Was the Russian empire too underdeveloped to create a socialist economy?
3. Could an authentic worker-controlled socialist economy exist in some territory less than the whole planet?

I think that the answer to 3 has to be yes. Capitalism is unlikely to be eliminated, poof!, all at once.

In the case of Russia, some will point to the 80 percent of the population who were subsistence farmers, about half of whom were illiterate, with no tradition of organization beyond the local village.

If socialism was impossible for Russia, it would have been for the latter reason, not because "you can't construct socialism in one country." that is a mere dogma that is used to construct an apologetics for the Bolshevik regime's developing into an exploitative class-divided society. The Russian empire was one-sixth of the population of world, i think. A huge area with varied resources. I think it's unclear whether it could have developed an authentically socialist economy. In any event, Bolshevik party power and practices made this impossible, even putting aside the question about the social dominance of the peasantry.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th November 2009, 22:59

Syndicat:

I think that the answer to 3 has to be yes. Capitalism is unlikely to be eliminated, poof!, all at once.

Who said it would or could?

If socialism was impossible for Russia, it would have been for the latter reason, not because "you can't construct socialism in one country." that is a mere dogma that is used to construct an apologetics for the Bolshevik regime's developing into an exploitative class-divided society. The Russian empire was one-sixth of the population of world, i think. A huge area with varied resources. I think it's unclear whether it could have developed an authentically socialist economy. In any event, Bolshevik party power and practices made this impossible, even putting aside the question about the social dominance of the peasantry

You must know that this was part of Trotsky's analysis, and nothing I have said contradicts it.

I think it's unclear whether it could have developed an authentically socialist economy.

On the contrary, it is quite clear that it couldn't, since the imperialist powers would, and did, force the USSR into military competition with the 'West', forcing in turn the degenerated Bolshevik regime to re-direct investment into heavy industry, attacking the living standards of the workforce to pay for it. The rest, of course, is history, as all these regimes collapsed for such reasons.

So, the fact that all of these regimes collapsed was no accident, but was based on not spreading the revolutuon internationally.

syndicat

26th November 2009, 23:18

There is one problem with your argument, rosa.

Stalin did indeed pursue a program of primitive accumulation to build heavy industry under the various plans that began in the late '20s. And the peasantry and working class saw deteriorated conditions during that period. So there was a forced increase in social investment to build up heavy industry, the military-industrial complex.

The problem with your argument is this: Stalin was only able to pursue such a direction because a techno-managerial or bureaucratic layer had already consolidated its class position, dominating over the workers and peasantry. This was further consolidated during the "proletarianization" campaign of 1929 which aimed to put party members through a crash program in universities to build up a class of engineers and managers loyal to the regime, as part of the industrial expansion program, and also to replace the managers and technical personnel inherited from the pre-revolutionary era. (Sheila Fitzpatrick talks about this in her history of the Russian revolution.)

Thus you have cause and effect reversed.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th November 2009, 03:30

Syndicat:

Stalin was only able to pursue such a direction because a techno-managerial or bureaucratic layer had already consolidated its class position, dominating over the workers and peasantry. This was further consolidated during the "proletarianization" campaign of 1929 which aimed to put party members through a crash program in universities to build up a class of engineers and managers loyal to the regime, as part of the industrial expansion program, and also to replace the managers and technical personnel inherited from the pre-revolutionary era. (Sheila Fitzpatrick talks about this in her history of the Russian revolution.)

I do not disgree with this, but you need a materialist explanation for why this happened, and this is provided by the pressure to catch up with the 'west'. As Stalin himself said, either the USSR rapidly catches up, or the 'west' will crush it.

Thus you have cause and effect reversed.

I think not.

syndicat

27th November 2009, 04:32

In a country with a vast but largely inert, unorganized and semi-literate peasant population, the Bolshevik Party's creation of a centralized state apparatus to manage the economy is itself a material force. The revolution could have been defeated in a variety of ways. But what one has to explain is the peculiar way it was defeated.

It wasn't defeated through capitalist reaction, but through the kind of institutions that were created during 1917-18....top down soviets, a top-down central planning system (Vesenkha), a top-down conventional army run by an elite officer caste, one-man management, etc. This is where we can find the explanation for the emergence of the administrative layer that consolidated itself as a new dominating class.

The kinds of social forces that come to the fore in a period of great upheaval, class conflict and discredit of old institutions will shape the outcome.

Thus there was already a new class separating itself out from the working masses, through its relative monopolization over expertise and the levers of decision-making in state and industry and organizations of violence (army). This separation, expressed also through its control over a state, put it in a position where it could carry out the primitive accumulation policies under Stalin, because the workers and peasants were disempowered and could not effectively prevent it (even tho there was individual resistance and lack of cooperation).

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th November 2009, 04:39

Syndicat:

In a country with a vast but largely inert, unorganized and semi-literate peasant population, the Bolshevik Party's creation of a centralized state apparatus to manage the economy is itself a material force. The revolution could have been defeated in a variety of ways. But what one has to explain is the peculiar way it was defeated.

It wasn't defeated through capitalist reaction, but through the kind of institutions that were created during 1917-18....top down soviets, a top-down central planning system (Vesenkha), a top-down conventional army run by an elite officer caste, one-man management, etc. This is where we can find the explanation for the emergence of the administrative layer that consolidated itself as a new dominating class.

The kinds of social forces that come to the fore in a period of great upheaval, class conflict and discredit of old institutions will shape the outcome.

I totally agree with this, but you need to explain why they found they had to accumulate. Now, unless you appeal to some form of innate psychological urge to accumulate found in bureaucrats, you can't account for this drive except you appeal to external factors: the pressure of imperialism.

So, I think we can put this down to two interlocking causes political degeneration and external pressure.

syndicat

27th November 2009, 05:18

Fears of other states can explain the arms race...their desire to build up a military-industrial complex. But it doesn't explain why there was that class there to carry this out. That's my point.

Hence, the arms race between competing states on the world stage, and their fears of the capitalist imperialist powers, cannot explain why there was that dominating class to carry forward that accumulation, and hence can't explain why the revolution was defeated since the emergence of a dominating class itself means the proletarian revolution is defeated.

Thus if we suppose that such a class had not been constructed, and if we suppose that a horizontal federalist soviet regime, such as the Toilers Republic proposed by the maximalists, had been the outcome, they would have tended to find some other way to deal with the external danger, that is, other than pursuing the form of primitive accumulation Stalin did.

GP Maximov, who was a trained agronomist, held that it would have been possible to increase the economic efficiency of Russian agriculture...what Stalin did by brutal and bureaucratic means...in ways consistent with self-management of rural communities and farming by the rural population. He was thinking in terms of convincing them to work collectively by providing tractors, mixed agro-industrial settlements in rural areas, etc. I don't know if this would have worked.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th November 2009, 05:22

Look, I agree with you, but unless you introduce this external factor, you can't explain why this "dominating class" found they had to accumulate.

sanpal

30th November 2009, 18:37

Sanpal:

Well, you can slice this any way you like, but the bottom line is that history has refuted the idea that socialism can be created in one country.

Get over it...

The bottom line is that history has refuted the practical realization of Duhring's model of Socialism and it doesn't matter whether it was in one country or in the few countries, or it will be on the globe as world system. Socialism which would be built according the Duhrin model will be doomed to fail. (read "Anti-Duhring" by F. Engels).

In the science it is accepted to consider the event as scientific fact after applying of the definite methodology:
- Practise (history in social science) is a criteria of the truth;
- the experiment has to have correct initial condition(s).

So if you do 10 trying (attempting) from the correct initial condition you can get 10 positive results.
If you do 10 trying (attempting) from the incorrect initial condition you can get all 10 results as negative only.
You can slice this any way you like, but you can do nothing against science.

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd December 2009, 00:33

Sanpal, I'm sorry, but I have only just seen this:

The bottom line is that history has refuted the practical realization of Duhring's model of Socialism and it doesn't matter whether it was in one country or in the few countries, or it will be on the globe as world system. Socialism which would be built according the Duhrin model will be doomed to fail. (read "Anti-Duhring" by F. Engels).

Anti-Duhring is among the worst books ever written by a Marxist.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-duhring-t80412/index.html

And I fail, to see how what happened in the former USSR (etc.) was an example of 'Duhring's model of Socialism'.

In the science it is accepted to consider the event as scientific fact after applying of the definite methodology:
- Practise (history in social science) is a criteria of the truth;
- the experiment has to have correct initial condition(s).

So if you do 10 trying (attempting) from the correct initial condition you can get 10 positive results.
If you do 10 trying (attempting) from the incorrect initial condition you can get all 10 results as negative only.
You can slice this any way you like, but you can do nothing against science.

I think you are using physics as a model here, which, as I am sure you will agree, is not an appropriate model for the social sciences.

Die Neue Zeit

3rd December 2009, 06:14

Rosa, you may have rightly criticized the dialectics of the first part of the Anti-Duhring, but sanpal was clearly referring to the third and final part of the book, which dealt with "Socialism." Try doing a Search on his user profile for his past posts, in which he said a lot about the problems with Duhring.

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd December 2009, 09:33

I realise this, but I still fail to see how what happened in the former USSR is an example of 'Duhring's model of Socialism'.

Die Neue Zeit

6th December 2009, 05:48

I suppose you can PM him. :confused:

Rosa Lichtenstein

6th December 2009, 16:51

Done it but he refuses to answer...

sanpal

7th December 2009, 22:12

And I fail, to see how what happened in the former USSR (etc.) was an example of 'Duhring's model of Socialism'.

Living in the former USSR I was getting wage. And the state-propagandistic apparatus was doing to convince us that it was not simple wage but it was the "socialistic" wage, that under socialism it was the kind of higher form of wage. Stalin in his work "Economic problems of socialism in the USSR" maintained that in the USSR the commodity-money relations are existing but they are restricted in socialistic manner by the State (i.e. by Stalin). Lenin after his failing of the policy of war communism passed on to the New Economic Policy with the normal commodity-money relations. It was his "one step back to do two steps forward" (maybe for creation of non-market communist economy beside capitalist sector?). Stalin after Lenin's death closed NEP, he let the commodity-money relations to be in existence but didn't let them to function as normal market system, he restricted money's basic function to circulate in some spheres but let this to be in others, he proclaimed market of labour already not existed and labour is not a commodity though all workers, officers had wage as attribute of market system, etc. etc.
Ideologically Stalin inculcated communist relations for the soviet people, and in the same time keeping the base for the commodity-money relations. As a result he took not dialectic but eclectic way, he didn't disjoin "flys" (capitalist mode of production) and "cutlets" (communist mode of production) but he prepared one dish "cutlets with flys", kinda "capital-communism", or "commune-capitalism", (who which a name prefer).

In his work "Anti-Duhring" F.Engels wrote (Part II: Political Economy; Chapter 6: Simple and Compaund Labour):

For socialism, which wants to emancipate human labour-power from its status of a commodity, the realisation that labour has no value and can have none is of great importance. With this realisation all attempts — inherited by Herr Dühring from primitive workers' socialism — to regulate the future distribution of the necessaries of life as a kind of higher wages fall to the ground
But it was 100% of "Duhring" in the former USSR and in the countries of the former socialist camp in which "Duhring" was cloned
in each cases.
Now you can see how important is dialectical but not eclectic way of development of the society aiming for the emancipation of the working class. Not scientific way leads the society to the next failing is it mentioned to a one country or to a group of countries like "socialist camp", or to population of the Globe .
So if the person who is positioning him/herself as "Marxist", throws out dialectic method "into the waste-basket", in best case he/she is a victim of his/her own philosophical mistakes.

Rosa Lichtenstein

8th December 2009, 06:20

Sure, there were parallels between Duhring's version of socialism and what happened in the former USSR under Stalin, but I still fail to see how the latter was "100% Duhring".

Now you can see how important is dialectical but not eclectic way of development of the society aiming for the emancipation of the working class. Not scientific way leads the society to the next failing is it mentioned to a one country or to a group of countries like "socialist camp", or to population of the Globe .

I also fail to see how dialectics is of any help at all.

Hexen

10th December 2009, 18:22

What about Socialism in one continent (Europe/Asia/etc)? Hopefully it'll grow from there since it has to start somewhere...

Rosa Lichtenstein

10th December 2009, 18:28

btpound

10th December 2009, 18:39

The point is that unless the socialist revolution is international will it have the economic resources to resist the imperialist powers and avoid being forced into miltary competition with them, as happened in the former USSR and China. This required the state in each case to exploit and oppress the working class. In short, it will require a revolution in the USA and other imperialist countries if socialism is to succeed.

What caused the oppression of the workers in China and USSR was not a military thread, (China never even suspected American intervention until the late 60s), it was that you had a deformed worker's state. I.e. a state where there the productive forces have not been developed. This, as Marx says, leads to the same old shit. You cannot wait around for a world revolution either, because as Lenin said it would leave the revolution "suspended in midair". Lenin did not shy away from starting the process of socialist construction.

Steve_j

10th December 2009, 19:52

It depends on what you regard socialism to be. For some it is interchangable with communism, in which case no.

Rosa Lichtenstein

10th December 2009, 21:37

Btpound:

What caused the oppression of the workers in China and USSR was not a military thread, (China never even suspected American intervention until the late 60s), it was that you had a deformed worker's state. I.e. a state where there the productive forces have not been developed. This, as Marx says, leads to the same old shit. You cannot wait around for a world revolution either, because as Lenin said it would leave the revolution "suspended in midair". Lenin did not shy away from starting the process of socialist construction.

Well, military competition with the west certainly led to the super-exploitation and oppression of the working class in the former USSR. As Stalin said, either they caught up in twenty years, or the west would crush them.

And Lenin was simply buying time, waiting for an advanced industrial country like Germany to have its own revolution.

What happened in China is, I agree, more complex, but if you think that the threat of miltary intervention from the west was seen as negligible, you only have to look at China's response to the Korean and Vietnamese wars to see that it wasn't.

Rosa Lichtenstein

10th December 2009, 21:39

Socialist-as-was:

Naahh, according to our Trotskyist pals (Posadists), socialism on even one planet is not going to work! And so the Trotskyists have been trying valiantly to recruit our alien comrades (perhaps practicing entryism too?). In that case how can it work in one country or continent??

May be so, maybe not, but history has still refuted the idea that socialism can be built in one country, whether you like it or not.

bailey_187

10th December 2009, 23:38

Socialist-as-was:

May be so, maybe not, but history has still refuted the idea that socialism can be built in one country, whether you like it or not.

Which Socialist state being the only exisiting one in the world has collapsed?
Maybe history has refuted Socialism can work in 12 countries? I knew there was something about that number.

Rosa Lichtenstein

11th December 2009, 01:33

Socialist_as_Was:

In fact history has refuted the idea that socialism can be built on one planet too, whether you like it or not. Our only salvation is forming the Intergalactic Trotskyist International

Since there hasn't been a revolution right across the planet yet, whereas there have been many in individual countries, all of which have failed or have gone backwards, my allegation still stands, while yours fails miserably.

Yet another Maoist failure, eh?

You lot have no luck...:(

Rosa Lichtenstein

11th December 2009, 01:35

Bailey-The-Easily-Bored:

Which Socialist state being the only exisiting one in the world has collapsed?
Maybe history has refuted Socialism can work in 12 countries? I knew there was something about that number.

If it can't work in twelve, it can't work in one.

Robocommie

13th December 2009, 16:21

Robocommie

13th December 2009, 16:34

May be so, maybe not, but history has still refuted the idea that socialism can be built in one country, whether you like it or not.

I think what history tells us, if it tells us anything, requires a great deal more analysis than that. And if anything, what history tells us is that the exact way it was done before won't work.

But if anything, history should tell us that an internationalist movement without compromise will never work... when has mankind ever done anything in lockstep? A revolution that starts in one country and is spread outwards by military force will be doomed to failure since revolution cannot be imposed from without, it then merely becomes colonialism, and it's a little silly to imagine revolution breaking out simultaneously all across the world. Capitalism requires uneven development, and the places of the world where the evil of capitalism is most apparent is in those regions most exploited for the benefit of imperial powers.

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th December 2009, 16:57

Robocommie:

I don't understand then, if socialism in one country is supposed to be unworkable, how is a revolution in the US different?

Re-read what I said, only more carefully this time.

I think what history tells us, if it tells us anything, requires a great deal more analysis than that.

Sure, that is why I recommended Trotsky's analysis, and Tony Cliff's criticism of it.

And if anything, what history tells us is that the exact way it was done before won't work

Can there be an 'exact way' in history?

But if anything, history should tell us that an internationalist movement without compromise will never work... when has mankind ever done anything in lockstep? A revolution that starts in one country and is spread outwards by military force will be doomed to failure since revolution cannot be imposed from without, it then merely becomes colonialism, and it's a little silly to imagine revolution breaking out simultaneously all across the world. Capitalism requires uneven development, and the places of the world where the evil of capitalism is most apparent is in those regions most exploited for the benefit of imperial powers.

The international nature of the system, and its crises, coupled wth the international nature of the proletariat, requires an international perspective.

The problem with your analysis is that unless the imperialist powers are defeated at home, by their own proletariat, they will always have the economic and military power to neutralise revolutions at the periphery, or, ensure that miltary competiton with them transforms these peripheral economies into either client or bankrupt states, as we saw in the former USSR and E Europe, and now in Cuba -- or, alternatively, to survive, they have to copy the 'West', as in Vietnam and China, and now in E Europe and the former USSR.

History has at least confirmed that analysis. [But this was predicted way back in the 1940s and 1950s.]

robbo203

13th December 2009, 17:14

I think what history tells us, if it tells us anything, requires a great deal more analysis than that. And if anything, what history tells us is that the exact way it was done before won't work.

But if anything, history should tell us that an internationalist movement without compromise will never work... when has mankind ever done anything in lockstep? A revolution that starts in one country and is spread outwards by military force will be doomed to failure since revolution cannot be imposed from without, it then merely becomes colonialism, and it's a little silly to imagine revolution breaking out simultaneously all across the world. Capitalism requires uneven development, and the places of the world where the evil of capitalism is most apparent is in those regions most exploited for the benefit of imperial powers.

I disagree. While we are not talking about a genuine communist revolution occuring literally simultaneously everywhere, it is more than highly plausible to imagine that, when it happens, there will be very little in the way of marked uneveness between countries in the extent of communist consciousness. Communism once the revolutiuon breaks out, will be established on a worldwide basis within a comparatively short timeframe and it will be far too late by then for the capitalist forces to muster either the support or will to do anything about it. Even most of the military will be communist minded

There are several reasons for thinking this

The first is the fact that we live more and more in global village in telecommhnication terms. Once communist ideas catch on somewhere they will spread pretty rapidly elsewhere too. The means to allow this to happen now exist

The second is the fact the world communist movement itself, as it grows, will be more and more in a position to able to correct spatial imbalances and unevenesses in the extent of comunist consciousness through the selective channelling of support and assitance to local communist movements across the world. The Soviet Union is not at all a good counter example to this because a) the Bolshevik revolution was not actually a communist revolution at all since we can all agree it did not establish communism and b) the extent of actual communist consciounsess was very low as admitted even by Lenin and this is what absolutely ensured it could not be a communist revolution.

The third is the fact outlined by Marx in The Germany Ideology. I have put in bold the relevant part which clearly shows Marx to be a proponent of "simultaneous" revolution

This "alienation" (to use a term which will be comprehensible to the philosophers) can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an "intolerable" power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity "propertyless," and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the "propertyless" mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples "all at once" and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism. Moreover, the mass of propertyless workers – the utterly precarious position of labour – power on a mass scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction and, therefore, no longer merely temporarily deprived of work itself as a secure source of life – presupposes the world market through competition. The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a "world-historical" existence. World-historical existence of individuals means existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world history.
( 5. Development of the Productive Forces as a Material Premise of Communism] http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm)

ZeroNowhere

13th December 2009, 17:33

This, as Marx says, leads to the same old shit.Um, Marx didn't write about a 'deformed workers' state'.

Living in the former USSR I was getting wage. And the state-propagandistic apparatus was doing to convince us that it was not simple wage but it was the "socialistic" wage, that under socialism it was the kind of higher form of wage. Stalin in his work "Economic problems of socialism in the USSR" maintained that in the USSR the commodity-money relations are existing but they are restricted in socialistic manner by the State (i.e. by Stalin). Lenin after his failing of the policy of war communism passed on to the New Economic Policy with the normal commodity-money relations. It was his "one step back to do two steps forward" (maybe for creation of non-market communist economy beside capitalist sector?). Stalin after Lenin's death closed NEP, he let the commodity-money relations to be in existence but didn't let them to function as normal market system, he restricted money's basic function to circulate in some spheres but let this to be in others, he proclaimed market of labour already not existed and labour is not a commodity though all workers, officers had wage as attribute of market system, etc. etc.
Ideologically Stalin inculcated communist relations for the soviet people, and in the same time keeping the base for the commodity-money relations. As a result he took not dialectic but eclectic way, he didn't disjoin "flys" (capitalist mode of production) and "cutlets" (communist mode of production) but he prepared one dish "cutlets with flys", kinda "capital-communism", or "commune-capitalism", (who which a name prefer).So what you're saying is that the Soviet Union was capitalist but the state pretended it was socialist. Cool. What the fact that communism and capitalism (generalized commodity production) are incompatible has to do with the negation of the law of non-contradiction is a mystery, however.

btpound

13th December 2009, 17:35

I disagree. While we are not talking about a genuine communist revolution occuring literally simultaneously everywhere, it is more than highly plausible to imagine that, when it happens, there will be very little in the way of marked uneveness between countries in the extent of communist consciousness. Communism once the revolutiuon breaks out, will be established on a worldwide basis within a comparatively short timeframe and it will be far too late by then for the capitalist forces to muster either the support or will to do anything about it. Even most of the military will be communist minded

yea, thats what they said in russia

The first is the fact that we live more and more in global village in telecommhnication terms. Once communist ideas catch on somewhere they will spread pretty rapidly elsewhere too. The means to allow this to happen now exist

yea, they said that in Russia too. Marx said we were all linked by once world economy, and one revolution would break the whole thing.

The second is the fact the world communist movement itself, as it grows, will be more and more in a position to able to correct spatial imbalances and unevenesses in the extent of comunist consciousness through the selective channelling of support and assitance to local communist movements across the world. The Soviet Union is not at all a good counter example to this because a) the Bolshevik revolution was not actually a communist revolution at all since we can all agree it did not establish communism and b) the extent of actual communist consciounsess was very low as admitted even by Lenin and this is what absolutely ensured it could not be a communist revolution.

yea, they said that in Russia too. So a communist revolution is only a communist revolution after it survives the generations and generation on a global scale necessary to produce communism? Of course Russia was a communist revolution. That's ridiculous to say. What will they come up with next?

The third is the fact outlined by Marx in The Germany Ideology. I have put in bold the relevant part which clearly shows Marx to be a proponent of "simultaneous" revolution

Your right he did. He said the revolution would happen in England, then france, then Germany, then the world. Marx though we would have world socialism by 1901. He thought capitalism woud happen in the strongest imperialist country, as you quoted here. It instead it "broke at its weakest link" as Trotsky said. He though a lot of things. But he was WRONG about that one. He was limited by his historical postion. We have the benefit in hindsight. And hindsight tells us we must begin the task of socialist construction, then aid the world revolution.

I am curious. If you believe in simultanious world revoloution, and the revolution takes place in your country, and not in any other yet, what do you do? Maintain the status quo? Roll over on your back and play dead? Certainly not socialist construction? That impossible!

Robocommie

13th December 2009, 17:36

Robocommie:
Sure, that is why I recommended Trotsky's analysis, and Tony Cliff's criticism of it.

I'll have to check that out then.

Can there be an 'exact way' in history?
In the sense of what happened, yes. Mistakes are made, as another poster has said, the true revolutionary learns from the flaws of the past and makes adjustments for the improvement of the future. Hasta la victoria siempre.

The international nature of the system, and its crises, coupled wth the international nature of the proletariat, requires an international perspective.I agree that it requires an international perspective, but I disagree that that requires global revolution. If it did, I feel that revolution will be impossible for the reasons I stated. Either we'll be forced to resort to a Socialist version of Bush doctrine nation building, or we'll be hoping for that magic Judgement Day when the workers of the world unite all at once.

The thing is, I don't even feel the proletariat is truly international in nature - how can you say that the material conditions facing auto workers in Detroit are the same as the workers in maquiladora plants in Juarez? Or what about people who fall outside of the classic mode of what the proletariat is, hotel maids in the US or campesinos in Central America? Their situation is not identical because the material conditions they face are not identical, nor are their cultural perspectives, and that needs to be respected or, it becomes another form of imperialism.

The problem with your analysis is that unless the imperialist powers are defeated at home, by their own proletariat, they will always have the economic and military power to neutralise revolutions at the periphery, or, ensure that miltary competiton with them transforms these peripheral economies into either client or bankrupt states, as we saw in the former USSR and E Europe, and now in Cuba -- or, alternatively, to survive, they have to copy the 'West', as in Vietnam and China, and now in E Europe and the former USSR.I disagree completely. The USSR in 1941 managed to defeat the greater part of one of the most advanced and industrialized militaries in all of human history, and they did so with an army of peasants who, thanks to Stalin's purges, didn't even have a sufficient corps of officers. North Vietnam managed to defeat one of the great super powers using an army largely composed of villagers equipped with small arms and machetes.

The fact is, the militaristic and imperial approach taken by the Soviet Union was not required, it was a choice that was made by the Soviet leadership, but it was not the required choice. The massive expenditure of the Soviets to support the Red Army was only necessary because they CHOSE to engage the capitalist powers in the Great Game and thus became another imperial power, if on the other hand the Soviet Union had declined to engage in such idiocy, it would have been much harder for the US to press it's military aggression on the Soviets without turning world opinion against them. In fact, even as history actually played out, world opinion often was directed against the US for it's own imperialist actions, despite the fact that the Soviets had made themselves a genuine threat many times.

But how is an internationalist approach to dodge this bullet? How could a revolution be promoted worldwide without reservation without a massive expenditure of military force? Or is it possible to engage in world conquest on the cheap? And wouldn't we instantly compromise our moral high ground by using the sword to impose Socialism from above, instead of letting the natural drive of humans for liberty and equality push them forwards on their own time?

And you shouldn't be so dismissive of Cuba and Vietnam. The situation has improved for them significantly since pre-revolutionary times, even if they did not institute classless societies they did make strides forwards.

Robocommie

13th December 2009, 17:55

The first is the fact that we live more and more in global village in telecommhnication terms. Once communist ideas catch on somewhere they will spread pretty rapidly elsewhere too. The means to allow this to happen now exist

Except the distribution of telecommunications is hardly universal, and furthermore, the capitalist mode of production means that it never will be. If it was, we'd hardly have to be communists.

You also need to take into effect that while Socialists have the benefit of telecommunications, so too does every other ideological movement. Just look at how difficult it is to maintain one truth on Wikipedia. Telecommunications technology brings new possibilities but it also brings new complications.

The second is the fact the world communist movement itself, as it grows, will be more and more in a position to able to correct spatial imbalances and unevenesses in the extent of comunist consciousness through the selective channelling of support and assitance to local communist movements across the world. The Soviet Union is not at all a good counter example to this because a) the Bolshevik revolution was not actually a communist revolution at all since we can all agree it did not establish communism and b) the extent of actual communist consciounsess was very low as admitted even by Lenin and this is what absolutely ensured it could not be a communist revolution.

That day may never actually come. In the free marketplace of ideas, you're never going to get full consensus on any one thing. No single ideology in history has ever swept the globe by storm. How can we achieve full "communist consciousness" across the world when we can't even achieve consensus on Revleft.org?

We have to win the battles where and when they happen, ever mindful of driving towards the future, ever watchful for betrayal of our principles in the meantime.

The third is the fact outlined by Marx in The Germany Ideology. I have put in bold the relevant part which clearly shows Marx to be a proponent of "simultaneous" revolution

I'm not sure if this is truly a fact. Marx had many good points and ultimately his analysis had more going for it than other social philosophies, but I don't agree with all of his conclusions. For one thing, some of his outlooks on history were very Eurocentric.

Ultimately I just can't get on board with this argument because I feel it's too teleological. Nothing in life is ever so convenient, nothing in life ever works out so well without unexpected consequences or impediments.

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th December 2009, 18:05

Robocommie:

In the sense of what happened, yes. Mistakes are made, as another poster has said, the true revolutionary learns from the flaws of the past and makes adjustments for the improvement of the future. Hasta la victoria siempre.

Well, this is all very odd; can you give us one example where the past was exactly like the future, especially in such complex circumstances?

I agree that it requires an international perspective, but I disagree that that requires global revolution. If it did, I feel that revolution will be impossible for the reasons I stated. Either we'll be forced to resort to a Socialist version of Bush doctrine nation building, or we'll be hoping for that magic Judgement Day when the workers of the world unite all at once.

Where has anyone argued for a 'global revolution'?

The thing is, I don't even feel the proletariat is truly international in nature - how can you say that the material conditions facing auto workers in Detroit are the same as the workers in maquiladora plants in Juarez? Or what about people who fall outside of the classic mode of what the proletariat is, hotel maids in the US or campesinos in Central America? Their situation is not identical because the material conditions they face are not identical, nor are their cultural perspectives, and that needs to be respected or, it becomes another form of imperialism.

O used the word 'international' in relation to workers in this rather boring sense: they are to be found in every country on the planet.

Sure they have differing local interests, but they all have an interest in ending there exploitation and oppression.

I disagree completely. The USSR in 1941 managed to defeat the greater part of one of the most advanced and industrialized militaries in all of human history, and they did so with an army of peasants who, thanks to Stalin's purges, didn't even have a sufficient corps of officers. North Vietnam managed to defeat one of the great super powers using an army largely composed of villagers equipped with small arms and machetes.

You mean, in 1945, surely? And had the German army not been led by a total incompetent (Hitler), this might not have come to pass. And it surely helped the Red Army that the German army had to fight on two fronts, and that they received massive assistance from the 'west'.

But, the point is that this military competition, whether they won it or not, forced on the degenerated Bolshevik party a series of measure where they were forced to oppress and exploit the working class of the former USSR, attempting to introduce there 'socialism' from above.

And, because they could not sustain this competition, by the 1980s the entire system was beginning to disintegrate.

North Vietnam managed to defeat one of the great super powers using an army largely composed of villagers equipped with small arms and machetes.

I agree, but look at the former 'communist' states now. Where are they?

Which was my point: history has refuted the idea that socialism can be created in one country.

The fact is, the militaristic and imperial approach taken by the Soviet Union was not required, it was a choice that was made by the Soviet leadership, but it was not the required choice. The massive expenditure of the Soviets to support the Red Army was only necessary because they CHOSE to engage the capitalist powers in the Great Game and thus became another imperial power, if on the other hand the Soviet Union had declined to engage in such idiocy, it would have been much harder for the US to press it's military aggression on the Soviets without turning world opinion against them. In fact, even as history actually played out, world opinion often was directed against the US for it's own imperialist actions, despite the fact that the Soviets had made themselves a genuine threat many times.

Well, this is a non-materialist explanation: the soviet leaders just made 'choices'.

But, these 'choices' were forced on them, as Stalin said: "If we do not catch the west up in 20 years they will crush us."

But how is an internationalist approach to dodge this bullet? How could a revolution be promoted worldwide without reservation without a massive expenditure of military force? Or is it possible to engage in world conquest on the cheap? And wouldn't we instantly compromise our moral high ground by using the sword to impose Socialism from above, instead of letting the natural drive of humans for liberty and equality push them forwards on their own time?

You are still thinking within the 'socialism from above' paradigm. Who wants to 'impose' socialism on anyone.

Workers have to win it for themselves, or take the consequences: barbarism.

As I noted in an earlier post:

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/drap...ouls/index.htm

robbo203

13th December 2009, 18:45

yea, they said that in Russia too. So a communist revolution is only a communist revolution after it survives the generations and generation on a global scale necessary to produce communism? Of course Russia was a communist revolution. That's ridiculous to say. What will they come up with next?!

No, a communist revolution is a communist revolution when it manifestly establishes communism - a moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth. The Bolshevik Revolution didnt establish that did it?

Your right he did. He said the revolution would happen in England, then france, then Germany, then the world. Marx though we would have world socialism by 1901. He thought capitalism woud happen in the strongest imperialist country, as you quoted here. It instead it "broke at its weakest link" as Trotsky said. He though a lot of things. But he was WRONG about that one. He was limited by his historical postion. We have the benefit in hindsight. And hindsight tells us we must begin the task of socialist construction, then aid the world revolution.

On the contrary, the weakest link in this case was precisely where capitalism - state capitalism - was established. The statist form of capitalism such as existed in the Soviet Union was probably at the time the most effective way of developing capitalism under these backward conditions though in the post war years it became increasing ineffective as witnessed by the Soviet Union's increasingly poor economic performance towards the end

You mention that Marx predicted world socialism by 1901. Thats interesting. Ive never heard that before. Do you have a link?

I am curious. If you believe in simultanious world revoloution, and the revolution takes place in your country, and not in any other yet, what do you do? Maintain the status quo? Roll over on your back and play dead? Certainly not socialist construction? That impossible!

An interesting question. I think frankly that by this time there would be already be everywhere a substantial groundswell of non-market productive activities prefiguring a communist society and in direct response to the growth of communist consciousness itself. Which means to say you will see the drfit towards communism already taking place prior to the formalisation of communism through the capture of political power. Once a communist movement first successfully captures political power in one part of the world then for the relatively brief spell of time - perhaps a few years at most - between this momentous event and the complete globalisation of communism there probably will be some kind of arrangement or deal struck between the communist parts of the world and the residual capitalist states increasingly at the the mercy of growing communist movements within these states. Perhaps some kind of barter arrangement might come into play at this point as a temporary expedient. Monetary transactions could certainly not function becuase of the nature of communism itself. What do you think?

Robocommie

13th December 2009, 19:04

You are still thinking within the 'socialism from above' paradigm. Who wants to 'impose' socialism on anyone.

Workers have to win it for themselves, or take the consequences: barbarism.

Okay, I want to step out of the conversation as it's been for a moment, and I apologize if you were wanting my response on specific things you've said, but I want to make sure I'm still following you and understanding what you're arguing.

What exactly is the position you support in terms of how a revolution must be accomplished? I understand that Trotskyists opposed the signing of the Brest-Litovsk treaty as they wanted to continue the war and liberate the working classes of the rest of Europe.

I don't want to proceed any further without asking this, because you've already expressed dissatisfaction with a couple of things I've said so I'm thinking I must not understand exactly what you stand for. In my mind, there's only two ways an internationalist revolution could work, either one great sweeping military advance from a revolutionary point of origin, which it seems you are definitely not in favor of, or one great simultaneous uprising, which I personally think is impossible.

robbo203

13th December 2009, 19:19

Except the distribution of telecommunications is hardly universal, and furthermore, the capitalist mode of production means that it never will be. If it was, we'd hardly have to be communists..

Well sure the capitalist mode of produiction means that the means of production remain in the hands of capitalists. Biut i wasnt referring to that. I was referring to things like TV sets, mobile phones, computers and so on. For example, I am in contact with functioning revolutiuonary socialists in apparently "remote" places like Uganda and Zimbabwe , workers who advocate the abolition of the wages system and the establishment of a system of comon ownership of the means of production. These comrades are in touch with others at the other end of the world. Telecommunications today allows for instant communication from anywhere to anywhere. Some of the most rapidly growing markets in telecomunications today are to be found precisely in the so called third world countries like China and India

You also need to take into effect that while Socialists have the benefit of telecommunications, so too does every other ideological movement. Just look at how difficult it is to maintain one truth on Wikipedia. Telecommunications technology brings new possibilities but it also brings new complications.
..

Of course. But we are speculating here on a future state of affairs in which you have a very significant communist movement across the globe. The social context by then would have been radically altered. Indeed i would mantain that given the growth of such a movement this would have a high selective effect effect on the nature of political oppostion to the movement. Far from the "polarisation thesis" holding truth, I think the oppsotie would be the case. The capitalist opposition would increasingly be adapting its perspective in a bid to steal some of the thunder from the communist movement. In short, the capitalist reformist parties will be becoming more and more forthcoming in their bid to bribe workers and to appear to be on the side of workers in a bid to stem the flow of support away from them

That day may never actually come. In the free marketplace of ideas, you're never going to get full consensus on any one thing. No single ideology in history has ever swept the globe by storm. How can we achieve full "communist consciousness" across the world when we can't even achieve consensus on Revleft.org?..

No this is confusing two things. The fundamentals and the details. I agree there never will be uniformity of opinion on the details of a future comunist society. Nor is that desirable. There will always be subtle differences of nuance and emphasis. Priorities will differ from one person to another and these things have to be settled by democratic debate and decisionmaking.

On the broad fundamentals, however . on the basic principlesof a future society - that it should be a non market weageless stateless commonwealth - there has to be agreement and mass support. This is certainly achievable in theory. After all, why do you think capitalism exists today acorss the globe. It exists essentially because the great majority permit it to exist. They acquiesce in capitalism however much they might dislike some of its effects

I'm not sure if this is truly a fact. Marx had many good points and ultimately his analysis had more going for it than other social philosophies, but I don't agree with all of his conclusions. For one thing, some of his outlooks on history were very Eurocentric...

yes I agree that Marx tended to be overly eurocentric in his approach as the quote I gave which talks about the dominant people simultaneously establishing communism testifies. I dont go along with this idea of the dominant people first establishing communism. I think workers and indeed peasants everywhere are quite capable of understanding the case for a communist society without it being imposed on them from outside (which wouldnt work anyway)

Ultimately I just can't get on board with this argument because I feel it's too teleological. Nothing in life is ever so convenient, nothing in life ever works out so well without unexpected consequences or impediments.

No I dont this argument is teleological in that sense. There is nothing inevitable about communism but our speculations on the way in which a communist revolutiuon might occur are grounded in our observations of the way in which ideas spread and on the nature of change itself. It is these observations that lead me to conclude that there is little that is plausible about the idea that you could have a mass communist movement in one part of the worlkd and few if any communists in another

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th December 2009, 19:39

Robocommie:

What exactly is the position you support in terms of how a revolution must be accomplished? I understand that Trotskyists opposed the signing of the Brest-Litovsk treaty as they wanted to continue the war and liberate the working classes of the rest of Europe.

I don't want to proceed any further without asking this, because you've already expressed dissatisfaction with a couple of things I've said so I'm thinking I must not understand exactly what you stand for. In my mind, there's only two ways an internationalist revolution could work, either one great sweeping military advance from a revolutionary point of origin, which it seems you are definitely not in favor of, or one great simultaneous uprising, which I personally think is impossible.

1) I am not sure what the Brest-Litovsk theory has to do with this.

2) You are still locked in the 'socialism from above mode'.

3) Who says this 'uprising' has to be simultaneous?

You seem more intent on picking a fight with a Trotskyist strawman than with addressing anything I have said.

Robocommie

13th December 2009, 19:48

Robocommie:

1) I am not sure what the Brest-Litovsk theory has to do with this.

2) You are still locked in the 'socialism from above mode'.

3) Who says this 'uprising' has to be simultaneous?

You seem more intent on picking a fight with a Trotskyist strawman than with addressing anything I have said.

Damnit no, I am asking you to help me understand what your position is. I'm not trying to fight. In point of fact, I am actually trying to avoid setting up a strawman by more properly understanding you.

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th December 2009, 19:51

Well, attributing to me ideas I do not have is not helping.

On Brest-Litovsk, check this out:

http://www.marxist.com/LeninAndTrotsky/chapter05.html

Robocommie

13th December 2009, 19:54

Well, attributing to me ideas I do not have is not helping.

Yes, exactly, this is why I am taking the time to ask you without reservation. You should not assume that I understand with perfect clarity all of the principles of Trotskyism. We are in the learning forum, no?

robbo203

13th December 2009, 19:55

3) Who says this 'uprising' has to be simultaneous?.

Marx for one. See the quote I earlier posted from the German Ideology

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th December 2009, 20:02

robbo203, I've tried to find where you quoted this, but I can't.

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th December 2009, 20:03

Robocommie:

Yes, exactly, this is why I am taking the time to ask you without reservation. You should not assume that I understand with perfect clarity all of the principles of Trotskyism. We are in the learning forum, no?

Fine, but I thought I was being clear.

Cliff's revision of Trotsky's theory can be found here:

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

You can find Hal Draper's argument (about socialism from below), here:

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

robbo203

13th December 2009, 20:13

robbo203, I've tried to find where you quoted this, but I can't.

Post number 96

Robocommie

13th December 2009, 20:18

Robocommie:
Fine, but I thought I was being clear.

Problem being that when the question is simply, "Can socialism work in one country?" and your argument is that no it cannot, I have to assume the only alternative is a global revolution. Either the planet leaps forwards in patches, or it would have to leap forward altogether at once. Unless your argument rests on a third option which I'm only now considering, the idea of multiple nations breaking out in revolution at once, being more than one but still not the sum total of the world's nations?

I'll try and look over these links you gave me, but it will take a while, I am a bit of a slow reader.

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th December 2009, 20:21

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th December 2009, 20:23

robocommie:

"Can socialism work in one country?" and your argument is that no it cannot, I have to assume the only alternative is a global revolution.

Indeed, but that does not imply a simultaneous revolution everywhere. It must spread rather quickly, though, and take in the major capitalist countries early on.

Robocommie

13th December 2009, 20:31

robocommie:

Indeed, but that does not imply a simultaneous revolution everywhere. It must spread rather quickly, though, and take in the major capitalist countries early on.

In that case, I have to say I still feel the same way. Conditions aren't going to be the same in every region, I can't see how it ever would be. In the United States, for example, the mechanisms of the state are still very strong and any armed revolt would be quickly crushed. On the other hand, our comrades in Nepal seem to be doing much better, and up until recently the Tamil Tigers also had a fight on their hands.

Eventually conditions in the US will change, but they will also change elsewhere, China and India, for example, will one day inhabit the position currently occupied by the US. The US economy however, without serious socialist reforms (which are not going to happen) is doomed.

I don't see how there's any way to proceed without winning battles where they occur, and constantly struggling to see that each and every revolution is fought for the interests of liberty, justice and equality, to make what progress we can when we can, until eventually socialism has become the dominant mode.

robbo203

13th December 2009, 22:01

Robbo, thanks. Here is the relevant passage:

Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples "all at once" and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism

This nowhere says that the revolution in every country must be simultaneous.

Sure, it refers to the "dominant peoples" (which I quess would today translate into the "developed world") simultaneously enacting communism.
But I think that in itself is significant enough - dont you? - and Marx is specifically repudiating the possibility of "socialism in one country" in this context which I appreciate yo do as well.

For my own part I accept the possibility of socialism (communism) being globalised formally within a very short time span (simultaneously is perhaps a misleading term) becuase its simply not realistic to think the socialist/comunist movement could attain significance in one part of the world and not elsewhere. ( See post 96 for the arguments in support of this proposition)

Paul Cockshott

13th December 2009, 22:29

Is socialism in one country possible and why is it necessary? Is this theory true to Marxism? Or is a result of Stalinist opportunism? Use examples and citations if possible. Thanks.

One has to be more precise in ones use of words.

What is one country?

Is the EU one country or many?

Was the USSR one country? - since its territory is certainly many countries now.

Do you mean by a country a single state?

In which case there is a huge range of states going from tiny ones like Mauritius to huge ones like India and China.

Then you have to ask what you mean by socialism?
What are the empirical rules you would use to test whether a given 'country' ( what ever that means ) is socialist.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th December 2009, 09:03

Paul:

One has to be more precise in ones use of words.

What is one country?

Is the EU one country or many?

Since these are legal concepts, they are relatively easy to answer in whatever period you are referring to.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th December 2009, 09:06

robbo233:

Sure, it refers to the "dominant peoples" (which I quess would today translate into the "developed world") simultaneously enacting communism.
But I think that in itself is significant enough - dont you? - and Marx is specifically repudiating the possibility of "socialism in one country" in this context which I appreciate yo do as well.

I repeat: simultaneously enacting communism is not the same as a simultaneous revolution, which is the erroneous dogma that the Stalinists (etc.) attribute to us Trotskyists.

robbo203

14th December 2009, 09:23

robbo233:

I repeat: simultaneously enacting communism is not the same as a simultaneous revolution, which is the erroneous dogma that the Stalinists (etc.) attribute to us Trotskyists.

Sorry but I am not sure what you mean by this - could you possibly elaborate?

To me, the revolution is an extended process of social transformation consumated or culiminating in the formal capture of political power and the immediate abolition of capitalism and the state. As I see it, this capture of political power by the communist movement would occur everywhere within a very short timespan - I prefer not to use the word "simultaneously" becuase it is misleading in its spurious exactness - and for the several reasons I touched on in my earlier post (96)

Paul Cockshott

14th December 2009, 10:38

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th December 2009, 12:59

Paul:

If it is relatively easy, then it will not take you much time to write down the answer.

It's relatively easy to climb Mt Everest (compared to K2), but that does not imply I can or will do either.

Same here.

If you are having a problem with a particular country, finding out what it is legally, a constitutional lawyer will be able to assist you -- relatively easily --, but not cheaply.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th December 2009, 13:07

robbo203:

Sorry but I am not sure what you mean by this - could you possibly elaborate?

Ok, country A(1) has a (proletarian) revolution, followed by country A(2) a few weeks/months later, followed by country A(3) a few weeks/months later..., followed by country A(n) a few weeks/months later.

Let us assume they are all successful. After a given time period (say a few years) their soviets (or whatever they call them) all decide to declare they are communist societies simultaneously (perhaps after the long process you mention). So, each revolution is non-simultaneous, but communism is.

To me, the revolution is an extended process of social transformation consumated or culiminating in the formal capture of political power and the immediate abolition of capitalism and the state. As I see it, this capture of political power by the communist movement would occur everywhere within a very short timespan - I prefer not to use the word "simultaneously" becuase it is misleading in its spurious exactness - and for the several reasons I touched on in my earlier post (96)

This is entirely possible, but so is my scenario. So are many others.

robbo203

14th December 2009, 14:28

robbo203:

Ok, country A(1) has a (proletarian) revolution, followed by country A(2) a few weeks/months later, followed by country A(3) a few weeks/months later..., followed by country A(n) a few weeks/months later.

Let us assume they are all successful. After a given time period (say a few years) their soviets (or whatever they call them) all decide to declare they are communist societies simultaneously (perhaps after the long process you mention). So, each revolution is non-simultaneous, but communism is.
This is entirely possible, but so is my scenario. So are many others.

So what you are saying really is that you advocate a transitional arrangement between the capture of political power by the communist movement in A1 and the simultaneous effective globalisation or enactment of communism by every country - A(1) to A(n) - once every country has seen the communist movement in it successfully capture political power

The difficulty with this scenario is of course that in the interval between A (1) capturing political power and the global enactment of communism is that you still have capitalism in A(1) for the simple reason that you dont yet have communism there. What is stop the whole process being reversed when a supposedly proletarian state finds itself managing capitalism in a way that cannot possibly serve the interests of the proletariat itself (which in fact is the only way that capitalism can be managed). This can very easily lead to substititionism and the rise of a new ruling class.

A better and far more realistic scenario in my opinion would be for A(1) to go communist straightaway internally upon the democratic capture of power and to come to some kind of temporary (perhaps barter) external arrangement with the residual capitalist parts of the world over such things as the transfer of material goods. Bear in mind that the room for manuovre by these residual capitalist states would be increasingly constrained by the presence of a very large communist movement in all of these states. Yes there may well be some inconveniences that the people in A (1) would have to put up with to begin with but I would imagine they would cope well in the knowledge that A (2) was about to turn communist as well in a very short space of time followed by A3 , A4 and A5 etc etc

This is to say nothing of the growing presence of communistic-type organisations and productive activities within the residual capitalist states themselves which will prefigure communism itself. These no doubt will maintain a lively and mutually supportive relationship with those parts of the world -like A(1) - which have already turned communist

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th December 2009, 14:37

robbo203:

So what you are saying really is that you advocate a transitional arrangement between the capture of political power by the communist movement in A1 and the simultaneous effective globalisation or enactment of communism by every country - A(1) to A(n) - once every country has seen the communist movement in it successfully capture political power

I'm not advocating anything; I am just spelling out one possible scenario to show that simultaneous communism is not the same as simultaneous revolution.

The difficulty with this scenario is of course that in the interval between A (1) capturing political power and the global enactment of communism is that you still have capitalism in A(1) for the simple reason that you dont yet have communism there. What is stop the whole process being reversed when a supposedly proletarian state finds itself managing capitalism in a way that cannot possibly serve the interests of the proletariat itself (which in fact is the only way that capitalism can be managed). This can very easily lead to substititionism and the rise of a new ruling class.

I agree, but then this might not happen too.

A better and far more realistic scenario in my opinion would be for A(1) to go communist straightaway internally upon the democratic capture of power and to come to some kind of temporary (perhaps barter) external arrangement with the residual capitalist parts of the world over such things as the transfer of material goods. Bear in mind that the room for manuovre by these residual capitalist states would be increasingly constrained by the presence of a very large communist movement in all of these states. Yes there may well be some inconveniences that the people in A (1) would have to put up with to begin with but I would imagine they would cope well in the knowledge that A (2) was about to turn communist as well in a very short space of time followed by A3 , A4 and A5 etc etc

Well, I sugest you make that argument in the soviets (or whatever they are called) after the revolution, and let's see if you win it.

However, you speak as if anyone could just decide to "go communist straightaway", and I am not sure that this is feasible. But it depends on what you mean by this.

This is to say nothing of the growing presence of communistic-type organisations and productive activities within the residual capitalist states themselves which will prefigure communism itself. These no doubt will maintain a lively and mutually supportive relationship with those parts of the world -like A(1) - which have already turned communist

I agree, but this is just speculation.

robbo203

14th December 2009, 16:07

robbo203:

I'm not advocating anything; I am just spelling out one possible scenario to show that simultaneous communism is not the same as simultaneous revolution.
.

I understand what you are saying here. However, to be nitpicking it is questionable whether you can reasonably talk of revolution having been accomplished if you still havent got communism. This is a question of definition. What is a revolution? I say its a protracted process of social transformation. In this sense, the capture of political powqer is not the revolution as such but only a moment in it. So we can equally talk of the time before the capture of political power as being part of the revolution. The crucial thing though is what consititues the culmination of the revolution, what brings the revolutionary process to an end as it were. This is the establishment of communism . In this sense we can say that the culmination of revolution is and can only be simultaneous with the establishment of communism. Prior to this point you cannot possibly argue that the revolution has been accomplished if communism has not actually been put in place yet.

robbo203:
Well, I sugest you make that argument in the soviets (or whatever they are called) after the revolution, and let's see if you win it.

However, you speak as if anyone could just decide to "go communist straightaway", and I am not sure that this is feasible. But it depends on what you mean by this.

Well if it is "after the revolution" then we have communism already as I have tried to explain above. The revolution is not completed if we still do not have communism. All that means is we still live in a capitalist society and we still have to undertake the revoltionary overthrow of capitalism

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th December 2009, 19:37

robbo203:

I understand what you are saying here. However, to be nitpicking it is questionable whether you can reasonably talk of revolution having been accomplished if you still havent got communism. This is a question of definition. What is a revolution? I say its a protracted process of social transformation. In this sense, the capture of political powqer is not the revolution as such but only a moment in it. So we can equally talk of the time before the capture of political power as being part of the revolution. The crucial thing though is what consititues the culmination of the revolution, what brings the revolutionary process to an end as it were. This is the establishment of communism . In this sense we can say that the culmination of revolution is and can only be simultaneous with the establishment of communism. Prior to this point you cannot possibly argue that the revolution has been accomplished if communism has not actually been put in place yet.

Ah, well you are now running two things together: the act of revolution and the process of revolution. I was referring to the former.

So, if you want to use the word in its second sense, then you and I agree, I think.

sanpal

9th January 2010, 22:21

10th December 2009
btpound (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=26402):

Hello comrade. I read your post on the USSR and socialism in one country. I had a question: Did the government really tell you that the USSR had achieved full socialism?

Yes, they did. It was seems in the early Brezhnev's period or in the tardy Krustchov's period when it was maintained that socialism in the USSR was built. Krustchov proclaimed that socialism as low phase of communism was achieved and a new thesis about creation of communist society to 80th, through 20 years, was proclaimed as a next step. I remember banners on the walls and roofs of houses: "Today's generation will live in (under) communism".

Did they maintain a realistic appraisal of their situation or was it all just propaganda?

I don't know for sure was it all just propaganda or they really believed in that what they maintained. Perhaps it is similar to the situation when a clergyman doesn't believe in god but he teaches the flock a religious dogma to push them to replenish charity-box for church and poor clergyman. Or in another case the clergyman could believe in God sincerely and do the same. I think they was forced to play the role of " Гуру " (spiritual director) to justify socialism in the USSR but they sincerely didn't know the solution how to pass from market economy and class society to non-market economy of communism, to classless society and had not found anything better than to proclaim market as socialist market, wage as fair wage, disappearance of classes in the USSR, disappearance of proletariat and forming of a person of new type - Soviet man. Thus it was maintained that socialism in the USSR was built completely, what could mean in their opinion that restoration of capitalism is unpossible. But they hadn't understood that they have built just utopian socialism a la Duhring (after closing of Lenin's NEP) what had led to eventually to destroying and collapse of this kind of society.

red cat

17th January 2010, 09:03

Red Cat:

Can we see your proof of this controversial claim?

Theories are built to explain things that happen and predict what might happen. One can't cook up a correct theory while ignoring facts. What kind of proof are you talking about?

1) You clearly failed to read the link I posted where I show that you lot have no evidence that the 'mass lie' came from the masses.

2) And you lot have staged only failed revolutions, ignoring the proof that socialism in one country is not possible -- and now you compound this by ignoring the practice that confirms it is not possible.

1) How exactly do you show that? I don't get it. Can you summarize your argument?

2) Marxism-Leninism-Maoism has historically progressed step by step. At first we did not know how to even temporarily overthrow the ruling class. We achieved that in Paris, 1971.The next problem was to introduce a stable government. Did that in the USSR. The next two problems were to make revolution in comparatively backward countries and prevent disintegration of the CP from within. The first was achieved in China and some other countries. China also gave an approach to the solution of the second problem, on which the present Maoist parties are still working.

On the other hand, what we have got from Trots till now is a failed attempt at Sri Lanka ( revolutionary Trotskyists were slaughtered even before they could organize their armed units) and a comparatively better attempt at Argentina ( the organization took arms, realized the faults in their theory and turned Maoist), other than the whole lot of counter-revolutionary junk that they continuously create to serve the ruling class.

As I said: heads in the sand.

They did not play a significant part in the transfer of power

Why are you asking me this? I have already accepted that this was a temporarily successful anti-imperialist revolution.

If it was temporarily successful as an anti-imperialist revolution, then how is China turning capitalist today? This couldn't have happened if imperialism came back to China at any point of time.[QUOTE]

Let's see you lot make a successful revolution.

As I said, we are progressing step by step.