Socialist 'branches'

[Che Guevara]

I didn't know the proper word for socialist 'branches', such as Maoism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, etc. So, I used the world socialist 'branches'.

ANYWAYS, getting back to the topic. I hope I can spark a little bit of a debate here. I'd like to know from you, my comrades, if you disagree or agree with the following statement. Then, I'd like to know why or why not.

"Following a certain socialist 'branch' is very silly."

Alright, now, you're all probably wondering why I believe in this... and this I will answer:

I'm going to take a bit of a step here and infer that most of my comrades, here on RevLeft are as progressive as I am in such a way that we'd all like to contribute to the uprising of a socialist state in our home countries.

Now, here is my argument. I personally believe that because the USSR imposed their economic and political structures upon their satellite countries. This I believe, led to the downfall of the Soviet Union and her satellite countries (It's not the only reason, I know. Blast you Yeltsin!)

I say this because of mainly one reason. You can't impose YOUR socialist 'branch', upon another country. Every country needs to develope their own form of socialism, in their own way. I say this because every country is different. Every country has a different set of values and beliefs. For example, the reason why the USA will never be able to be 'successful', in Afghanistan is because the USA is imposing their set of beliefs, values, economic, and political structures upon a foreign country. Also, for example, I live in Canada. We have a mixed economic system here in Canada, and so far it 'works', whereas in the USA they have less government intervention.

Well anyways, I was kind of tired when I wrote this.. but never the less, let me know what you guys and gals think.


Che


EDIT -- I guess what I've trying to get at here, is we shouldn't we 'following', socialist 'branches', but rather we should we discussing how we can implement socialism in OUR own country, in OWN unique way.

[RHIZOMES]

I follow Marxism-Leninism and support Maoist movements in the third world because those are the ones that have been the most flexible in their theory and practice in my view and have met with success as a result. That isn't comparable to imposing your branch Warsaw Pact style. Every country is gonna have different conditions and it is up to revolutionaries to adapt their theory/practice to their own countries. That's why I'm not a Maoist as I don't see it relevant to first world countries such as New Zealand. You can adapt to local conditions and still follow a "branch". Some people are more dogmatic in following their ideology down to the letter though, and they're the revolutionaries who are gonna fail.

[Spawn of Stalin]

It's a nice idea I'll give you that. I'm all for self-determination, if East Timor wants to be an anarchist country then that's fine by me, as long as they don't tell me what to do everyone's happy, right? Wrong. There are so many different socialist tendencies and ideologies in each and every country that it would be impossible for us all just to forget about them, we could do away with the labels but our ideas would still be radically different, the theories themselves are the problem, not the use of terms like Marxism, anarchism, etc. It's not a national issue, if it were then things would be a lot less complicated, everyone in Nepal would be Maoists, everyone in Cuba would be Castroists, everyone in China would be, well, let's not get into that because I can't be bothered with another China debate. This isn't the case, unfortunately, here in Britain we have Trotskyists, anarchists, Marxist-Leninists, democratic socialists, ultra-lefts, even some hardcore followers of the Juche Idea. The only way we can stop following different socialist trends is by eliminating them completely and agreeing on everything, and that just isn't going to happen, at least not in any of our lifetimes.

[mikelepore]

The first post seems to mix two separate things: one is "following" a theory, and the other is imposing that theory on others. To impose any system on other countries by force is to be condemned. The Soviet Union's invasions of Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Afghanistan in 1979 are to be condemned. To follow an idea is something quite different. There is no one who doesn't follow some set of beliefs.

[FSL]

The US and Canada do not have a somewhat different structure in their economies out of respect to their people's wishes.
In fact, a large part of the american bourgeoisie was very happy with Reagan's increased military spending despite it creating larger deficits. Also, they rallied behind Obama and the promise of more stimulus plans. On the other hand, I'm sure there is that part of bourgeoisie in Canada that argues for less taxes and less governemnt intervention in the economy.
These differences are the results of the different aims of each capitalist. Each "national" rulling class will seek to use the force of the state it controls for its own benefit and within the state itself there will be factions of capitalists which will be fighting each other. Even people making up these factions will then be trying to get each other out of business. So, the different approach we see is the result of the differing aims, the result of capitalist competition.

Workers know not of such competition. They share a common interest of overthrowing the capitalist class and taking over the control of the economy. This aim is universal among workers so their actions should reflect their common aim. Which means that, generally, there indeed is only one kind of socialism. In fact, every time we've seen a kind of socialism with its very own, distinct, national characteristics, we've only witnessed a change in the direction of these regimes, a direction away from socialism. Be these "independent" states Yugoslavia, Romania, Cambodia, or recently China.




The Soviet Union's invasions of Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Afghanistan in 1979 are to be condemned



Just as much as the International Brigades or the Soviet invasion in Angola are to be condemned.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I agree with your sentiments Che.

Btw, the word you are looking for is 'tendency.'

But yes, it was wrong of the USSR to impose its version of Socialism - adapted to the very unique socioeconomic and geopolitical conditions availing in Russia, on other nations later on.

Personally, I don't align myself to a particular tendency. I do think that sectarianism can be healthy, if it exists based on the understanding that all tendencies must work together to achieve a Socialist society, and that one tendency, unless by the overriding and undeniable will of the people, should not become the sole owner of power, or have hegemonical rights over strategic political decisions.

[Rjevan]

"Following a certain socialist 'branch' is very silly."
I disagree.

Everybody has to decide for him/herself which socialist theories (or which theories generally) make sense and which one he/she agrees most with. Usually one will follow these ideas then but I think here you are confusing things. To follow a certain tendency doesn't mean that its texts are sacrosanct, its leaders are unfaillible and critical thinking is equal to blasphemy, quite the contrary. It is important that you keep using your own brain, analyse individual situations and not just stay stuck in history and stubborn dogmatism and condemn everything and everybody within your tendency who dares to express his/her own view.

But it should be also a matter of course (and not only because e.g. Lenin argues that way ;)) that we need a theoretical basis. We can't just go on, everybody for himself with his/her own privat theory, made up at 3 am in the night, disregarding other socialist theories and experiences from the past as if they never existed and then wonder why we achieve nothing at all. A strong theoretical basis is needed, otherwise we will encounter all the problems Lenin listed in "What is to be done?": hordes of confused youngsters in their puberty and wannabe intellectuals running around and talking about "socialism", achieving nothing but confusion and being an easy target for the state. Spreading some generally wishy-washy socialism, not knowing what you talk about, will only help the bourgeoisie, certainly not the proletariat.

And as Arizona Bay said, you can support one tendency while knowing it doesn't fit in the very specific situation of "your" country.


I say this because of mainly one reason. You can't impose YOUR socialist 'branch', upon another country. Every country needs to develope their own form of socialism, in their own way. I say this because every country is different. Every country has a different set of values and beliefs.
...
EDIT -- I guess what I've trying to get at here, is we shouldn't we 'following', socialist 'branches', but rather we should we discussing how we can implement socialism in OUR own country, in OWN unique way.

"Every country has a different set of values and beliefs." - True, but you totally disregard that socialism/communism is international!
If every socialist movement of every country just works sloley for themselves, not taking experiences, tactics and ideas as well as victories and failures from foreign comrades into account, analyes them and learns from them as well as discussing important matters with parties and comrades from other countries on a common theoretical base, this is not productive for the struggle "at home" but narrow-mindedness and a contradiction to and therefore betrayal of the very idea of international socialism. Again nobody but the bourgeoisie will profit from this.
You have to realise that following a communist theory and promiting it on an international base doesn't mean that you disregard reality and the differences between various countries and want to force some dogmatic and outdated system upon all of them, regardless of the consequences. An international movement can not be compared to the Warsaw Pact or NATO conquering countries and opressing them.

I know you don't think of and aim at this direction but some points of your argumentation, especially the underlined bold parts in the quote above, remind me of Ernst Niekisch and his theories of "National Revolution" and "National Bolshevism". And while I promote and subscribe to the idea of "socialism in one country" I am not only interested in achieving socialism in Germany but in the whole world in the end, so it would again be narrow minded to sloley concentrate on "your" country, isolate from the international movement and leave the rest of the world to themselves.

[el_chavista]

You can't impose YOUR socialist 'branch', upon another countryThe word "branch" is not the most appropriate to name the different Marxist currents or tendencies.

Historical materialism is a social science. It points out that the capitalist society alone will not evolve into a true humanism. Marxism is a political trend to win a true humanism.

But humanity has had an uneven development and was divided by the bourgeois nationalism in different countries with an uneven degree of economic development each one.

There are so many parameters and conditions for doing a revolution in a country (spontaneity of the masses or willpower of the vanguard? Parliamentary or armed struggle?, etc. etc.) that, inevitably, there is not a unified theory.