Failure of Marxism article?

[ComradeMan]

I found this old article taken from a talk on the net. These are not necessarily my opinion but I think the author makes some interesting points. The sections in bold I highlighted as interesting points. Any critique?


http://struggle.ws/wsm/talks/marxism.html

Talk by Alan MacSimóin to the Trinity College Socialist Society, November 10th 1994
The failure of Marxism


This is the text of a talk given to a Workers Solidarity Movement meeting. As such it represents the authors opinion alone and may be deliberately provocative in order to encourage discussion. Also it may be in note form. Still we hope you find it useful....

Marxism is certainly the dominant current on the left, some would even claim that it is impossible to be a real socialist unless you are a Marxist. For a socialist to question Marxism can sometimes be regarded as a form of heresy, it can stir up feelings akin to those of a Christian Union member who is confronted by a communion chewing satanist.


And the religious similarity does not end there. How many of us have not come across the sort of Marxist who answers a difficult question with a one or two line quotation from Karl? It need not even have any particular relevance, just as the born again Christian plucks quotes randomly from the Bible. But you are being dared to disagree with the great man himself and if you do you aren't a good Marxist, and if you aren't a good Marxist your socialism is at best weak and at worst quite suspect.

To even suggest that Marxism has failed can lead to a rolling of the eyes and a dismissal of one's case as ignorant, revisionist, utopian, reformist, or what ever insult you fancy yourself. It is as if some people can not see that the organised revolutionary left today is at its weakest for many years. It is not so much a question of the triumph of capitalism, however, as the failure of most of the ideologies of socialism. The collapse of both old style Labourism and the USSR has left the vast bulk of the left confused and demoralised, either dead, dying or repeating decades old slogans as if oblivious to all the changes that have happened since.


The left, for the most part, consisted of those who wanted to liberate the rest of us. There were two distinct flavours, Labour parties that said elect us to office and we will gradually abolish capitalism for you. I won't go into their politics as most of them have not claimed to be Marxist since the time before World War One.


The bulk of the Marxist left came to consist of supporters of the Bolshevik tradition, divided - like the flavours of Heinz soup - into 57 varieties. Like the Labour parties they promised that if we put them into power they would sort out the problem for us. They may have recognised that the creation of socialism would first require the overthrow of capitalism but in power they have been every bit as anti-working class as the social democrats were, perhaps even more so. Their idea of building socialism after the revolution included smashing all working class organisation outside the control of their party - from factory committees to trade unions. This side of the revolution they spent more time squabbling over who was the real vanguard than anything else.

The conflict between Marxism and anarchism occurred over the question of the state. Could socialism be introduced by a minority, either using the existing state, or using one of their own creation after a revolution as the Marxists claim, or could socialism only be introduced through the actions of the working class itself? Now after the collapse of the eastern block and of the left inside the Labour parties it is clear that the statist path to socialism is a failure. Unfortunately such was the ideological dominance achieved by Marxism in the period after World War Two that for many this signals the end of socialism itself.

With the exception of small handfuls like the Dutch council communists or American DeLeonists, there are very few Marxists today who do not also support Leninism and the Bolshevik tradition. Therefore it is not unreasonable to look at the record of the Bolsheviks as representing Marxism in action.

The Russian revolution of 1917 has been a subject of key importance for over three quarters of a century now, for two reasons. The first reason is that for the first time in history a working class revolution succeeded in ousting the old ruling class. The second reason is that after the old ruling class was ousted a new class came to power. Those of us who want to make a revolution today must understand where the successes and failures of the past came from.

The Russian revolution demonstrated that it was possible for the working class to take over the running of the economy and to bring down their old rulers, not once but twice in a single year. After the February revolution of 1917 the workers entered into a period of almost constant struggle with the state and the bosses. At the start of this period many workers supported the Kerensky government. This struggle changed their attitudes on a mass scale and gave them the confidence to try to overturn all of the old order and privilege. Committees sprung up in the factories and the armed forces. In the run up to October the workers had already taken control of most of the factories. The purpose of the October revolution was to smash the state, destroying the power of the bosses to use armed force to recover their property.

There were several organisations arguing for a workers revolution in this period. This included many anarchists. They were however much fewer in number than the Bolshevik party which came to claim the revolution as its legacy alone. During the 1905 revolution the anarchists had raised the slogan "All power to the soviets", at the time this was opposed by what became the Bolshevik party but in 1917 they used this slogan to gain mass support. Other Marxists at the time were, incorrectly to accuse the Bolsheviks as having abandoned Marxism for Anarchism but as events were to show they had done no such thing.

The revolution was made by no single organisation, but rather was the work of the working class of Russia. But as usual it was the victors who were to write history, and Bolshevik history tends to be rather selective. Two small points to illustrate this.... how many of today's Marxists know that during the October revolution 4 anarchists were members of the Revolutionary Military Committee that co-ordinated the military side of the revolution, or that it was an anarchist sailor from the Kronstadt naval base led the delegation which dissolved the constituent assembly?

After October the working class of the Russia set about the process of building the new society on the ruins of the old. If they had succeeded there would be little need for this meeting today. However within a few short years the revolution had collapsed. The old bosses never came back as a class, although many individuals returned. Instead a new class of rulers arose, one which successfully incorporated many of the revolutionaries of 1917. If we are really to learn from history, then for socialists today there is a pressing task to understand not only why the revolution failed but also why it failed in such a manner. The fact the patient died is now obvious, the question today is what it died of.

Many socialists have tried to explain this degeneration of the revolution as a product of a unique set of circumstances, comprising the backward state of the USSR and the heavy toll inflicted by three years of civil war and western intervention. According to this theory the Bolsheviks were forced to take dictatorial measures in order to preserve the revolution. These were intended as emergency measures only and would have been repealed later but for Stalin's rise to power in the 20's. This interpretation of history presents the Bolsheviks as helpless victims of circumstances.
This is not a view anarchists accept. It is a view that falls beneath even a casual look at what occurred in the USSR between 1917 and 1921. It also collapses when you look at what Leninist ideology had stood for before and after the revolution. We instead lay the blame at the feet of Lenin and the Bolshevik party. The degeneration was part and parcel of the policies of the Bolsheviks.

What actually happened in this period was the replacement of all the organs of workers democracy and self-management with Bolshevik imposed state rule. One example of many is given by the factory committees. These were groups of workers elected at most factories before, during and after the October revolution. The delegates to these committees were mandatable and recallable. They were elected initially in order to prevent the individual bosses from sabotaging equipment. They quickly attempted to expand their scope to cover the complete administration of the workplace and displaced the individual managers. As each workplace relied on many others to supply raw materials, power and to take their products on to the next stage of production the Factory Committees tried to federate in November 1917.

They were prevented from doing so by the Bolsheviks through the trade union bureaucracy. The planned 'All Russian Congress of Factory Committees" never took place. Instead the Bolshevik party decided to set up the "All Russian council of workers control", with only 25% of the delegates coming from the factory committees. In this way the creative energy of Russian workers which would have resulted in a co-ordinating centre not under Bolshevik control was blocked in favour of an organisation the party could control. This body was in itself stillborn, it only met once. In any case it was soon absorbed by the Supreme Economic Council set up in November 1917 which was attached to the Council of Peoples Commissars, itself entirely made up of Bolshevik party members.

So within a few short months of October the Bolsheviks had taken control of the economy out of the hands of the working class and into the hands of the Bolshevik party. This was before the civil war, at a time when the workers had showed themselves capable of making a revolution ....but according to the Bolsheviks incapable of running the economy. The basis of the Bolshevik attack on the factory committees was simple, the Bolsheviks wanted the factories to be owned and managed by the state, the factory committees wanted the factories to be owned and managed by the workers.

There were many anarchists involved in the factory committee movement at the time, mainly through the K.A.S., the Confederation of Anarcho-Syndicalists. In some areas they were the dominant influence in the factories. The influence of the KAS was to grow rapidly in the unions, to the point where the Bolsheviks started to physically suppress its activists in 1918. At the first All-Russian council of trade unions the anarcho-syndicalists had delegates representing 75,000 workers. Their resolution calling for real workers control and not state control was defeated by an alliance of the Bolshevik, Menshevik and Social-Revolutionary Party delegates. By the end of 1918 workers control was replaced with individual management of the factories (by Bolshevik decree) and the KAS had been weakened by armed Cheka raids and the closing down of its national publication in April and May 1918.

All this occurred before the Civil war and the allied intervention attempted to smash the revolution. The civil war was to inflict terrible suffering on the Soviet Union as the combined forces of White generals and 17 foreign armies captured up to 60% of the land area and threatened to capture Petrograd. It also provided the excuse the Bolsheviks were to use for the suppression of workers control, but as we have seen this was a process that was already under way.

The civil war greatly weakened the ability of the working class to resist the further undermining of the gains they had made in 1917. During the civil war emphasis was placed on the need for unity to defeat the Whites. After the civil war a much weakened working class found itself faced with a complete state structure armed with all the repression apparatus of the modern state. Many of the dissident left wing activists had been jailed or executed by the Bolsheviks. In 1921 at the end of the civil war only a fresh revolution could have set the USSR back on the path towards socialism.

The important point is that the repression of workers democracy by the Bolsheviks was as a result of Marxist or Bolshevik ideology rather then due to character flaws in the Bolshevik leadership. Lenin had a very limited view of what socialism was, seeing it as little more then an extension of state capitalism. As he put it in his own words:
"State capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no gaps". The introduction of piece work and one-man management in the factories in 1918 and 1919 displays a similar fixation with managerial power.

Lenin believed that ordinary workers could not run society. A party of intellectuals was necessary to do this. He thought that workers were unable to go beyond having a "trade union consciousness" because of the fact they had no time to study socialism. Once again i his own words:
"there are many....who are not enlightened socialists and cannot be such because they have to slave in the factories and they have neither the time nor the opportunity to become socialists". Briefly in 1917 Lenin was forced to acknowledge this to be wrong when he admitted that the workers were 100 times ahead of the party from February to October. But unwilling to allow the facts to get in the way of a good theory he quickly reverted to his original position.

This position was the justification for the dictatorship of the party. In a modern sense it is the justification for putting the party before all else. Some Leninists today will happily argue that a socialist should have no principles beyond building the party and that even scabbing is excusable if it is in their party's interests. Leninist organisations tend to look at struggles purely in terms of recruitment, remaining involved just long enough to pick up one or two new members, then moving on to the next one. For the Leninists the chance of a revolution being successful is mainly determined by the size of their party at the time.

The Bolsheviks saw their party as comprising all the advanced revolutionaries - the vanguard. They saw socialism as something best implemented by a professional leadership. So when they talked of dictatorship of the proletariat they did not mean the working class as a whole exercising control of society. They meant the party holding power on behalf of the working class, and in practise the leadership of the party being the ones making all the important policy decisions.

They believed the party, because of its unique position was always right and therefore it had the right to rule over all the class. So, while the Soviets had been useful to the Bolsheviks up to the October revolution, after the revolution they became a threat. They could and did decide policy which would contradict the party line. Most of them were not sufficiently under the control of the party, as they contained many other revolutionaries also. So the Bolsheviks proceeded to turn them into organs which did little more than rubberstamp party decisions.

By 1918 this process had been advanced to the extent that the decision to sign the treaty of Brest-Livtosk, which surrendered a huge area of the revolutionary Ukraine to Germany and the Austro-Hungarian empire, was made at a party Central Committee meeting. Indeed the central committee was split, the decision going through only by one vote. The Soviets had no role at all in this decision making. This was long before the civil war and the famine was to be used as an excuse for such manoeuvres.

The success and failure throws up all the questions that still separate anarchism from all other socialist theories. Where do revolutionary ideas come from? Lenin was quite clear on this in 'What Is To Be Done'. "History in all countries attests that, on it's own, the working class cannot go beyond the level of trade union consciousness, the realisation that they must combine into trade unions, fight against the employers, force the governments to pass such laws as benefit the conditions of the workers....As for the socialist doctrine, it was constructed out of the philosophical, historical and economic theories elaborated by educated members of the ruling class by intellectuals".

Anarchists on the other hand point to the creative energy of the working class, the creation of Soviets in 1905 and of the Hungarian Workers Councils in 1956, for instance, were spontaneous events unguided by any organisation.

Leninists see their party as representing the working class. This was the justification for the suppression of all rivals in 1918 by the Bolsheviks and for the closing down of factions inside their own party from 1918 to 1921. Trotsky, even more then Stalin or Lenin, was the most prominent supporter of what was called the party's historical birthright. In the early 20's he was to repeatedly use this idea of the party's birthright against minority groups and individuals in the Bolshevik party. The most astounding part of this however was the willingness of the same groups and individuals to accept this silencing in the name of the party. By the 30's this whole process was to reach its logical conclusion with Stalin's show trials of many of the old Bolshevik leadership.

The right of the Bolsheviks to dictate to the class was clearly expressed in 1921, by Trotsky at the 10th party congress. In attacking a faction within the Bolshevik party he said of them "They have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers right to elect representatives above the party. As if the party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy!" Here we have one of the clearest statements of the ideology behind Bolshevik practise. This is the road many of todays Marxists would like to lead us on to.

There is an entirely different project of how capitalism is to be overthrown and what is to replace it. Workers democracy is not merely icing on the cake or a step towards a workers state. We have no illusions in the neutrality of the state, no matter in whose hands power may lie. We wish to take part in the building of a workers movement not only capable of tearing down existing society but also of building a new society free of exploitation.

It is on this issue that anarchism's fundamental difference with Leninism is made clear. We agree with Lenin that authority can only be defeated by authority, that the authority of the bosses will be destroyed by the authority of the workers. We agree on the need for a lead to be given within the class. But while anarchist leadership is one of persuasion and education, the Marxist-Leninist party goes way beyond this and tries to grab power through control of the state. It seeks to exercise the authority of the party over the workers. In doing this it prepares the way for the growth of a new oppressive ruling class, as Lenin's Bolshevik party did in Russia.

There is much of use within Marxism, I do not propose to throw away the impressive economic analysis for instance, but as an ideology, as a tradition and as a guide for the future it has failed; and failed on a grand scale. Socialists must be prepared to question everything. And that includes Marxism. If the right tools are not chosen for the job, the job will not get done right.

[Robert]

To even suggest that Marxism has failed can lead to a rolling of the eyes and a dismissal of one's case as ignorant, revisionist, utopian, reformist, or what ever insult you fancy yourself.

Are you sure this is from an old article? :lol:

Seriously, thanks for posting it. The writer cuts to the heart of the communists' problem: ossification.

[ZeroNowhere]

With the exception of small handfuls like the Dutch council communists or American DeLeonists, there are very few Marxists today who do not also support Leninism and the Bolshevik tradition.Well, I suppose all publicity is good publicity?

Anyhow, the religious comparisons are more or less the political article equivalent of trolling, and to be honest I don't see that there's much in there that hasn't been said better elsewhere (and not infrequently).

[Bud Struggle]

Are you sure this is from an old article? :lol:


Indeed. It could have been written yesterday! :D

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I have two points:

1. Anyone who complains about Marxism or "old" socialist politics without offering a coherent alternative should be dismissed out of hand. More damage has been done to the left over the past 20 years by such stupid and fruitless navel-gazing than by any supposed "failure of Marxism." Our theories are perfectly sound. The failure is one of action.

2. The article correctly points out the failure of action every time it talks about action, and for this it is a useful article. It is true that we've spent more time in pointless internal arguments and squabbles over who is the "real" vanguard than in doing any useful revolutionary work. It is true that we have utterly failed to make a persuasive argument to the working class about the benefits (and the necessity) of socialism and communism. Most workers don't even know what socialism is - and that's entirely our fault.

But all these are failures of action, failures of the movement. We need better organization, better propaganda, more persuasive arguments. But our theory is perfectly fine as it stands.

[Kayser_Soso]

I have two points:

1. Anyone who complains about Marxism or "old" socialist politics without offering a coherent alternative should be dismissed out of hand. More damage has been done to the left over the past 20 years by such stupid and fruitless navel-gazing than by any supposed "failure of Marxism." Our theories are perfectly sound. The failure is one of action.

I don't know if you too have noticed this, and to be honest I find it hard to put my finger on this trend myself, but there does seem to be an attempt on the part of a hardcore but still liberal left that attempts to create new theories on par with Marxism to explain the world, yet failing all the way. I'm talking about ideas like that of Naomi Klein or Noam Chomsky for example. People like this seem to like to go as close to Marxism as possible but then they get off into idealism land.

[IcarusAngel]

There is no such "trend." Liberals tended to defend pseudo-Marxist and totalitarian states as a better alternative to what was already existed (debatable), whereas council communists and those left-Marxists who were closest to Marx's teachings always denounced the Soviet Union.

Anarchists were always criticial of both Marxism (even the anarcho-communists) and the totalitarian states.

[Kayser_Soso]

There is no such "trend." Liberals tended to defend pseudo-Marxist and totalitarian states as a better alternative to what was already existed (debatable), whereas council communists and those left-Marxists who were closest to Marx's teachings always denounced the Soviet Union.

Anarchists were always criticial of both Marxism (even the anarcho-communists) and the totalitarian states.

Left-Marxists and Council Communists who denounced the Soviet Union usually lived in privileged Western nations and never really accomplished much in the way of struggle against capitalism, so of course it was easy to criticize. Those who can't accomplish- criticize endlessly.

[Glenn Beck]

To even suggest that Marxism has failed can lead to a rolling of the eyes and a dismissal of one's case as ignorant, revisionist, utopian, reformist, or what ever insult you fancy yourself.

Except for the first one (and only under certain contexts), none of those are insults, just descriptions with long standing definitions among Marxists.

Anyway its interesting to see the so-called WSM denouncing Marxism in favor of some un-named new theory and decrying the dogmatic "Bible-study" attitude some leftists have towards certain sources.

It's, shall we say, a novel contrast to their usual approach of claiming to be the only genuine and orthodox Marxists and denouncing 99% of those claiming the name as frauds, usually combined with a few choice quotes from the holy scriptures of Saints Karl and Fred.

This is clearly a brilliant innovation on the part of our comrades of the illustrious Trinity College Socialist Society. To call it revisionist, god forbid, opportunist would truly be an "insult".

[cb9's_unity]

Left-Marxists and Council Communists who denounced the Soviet Union usually lived in privileged Western nations and never really accomplished much in the way of struggle against capitalism, so of course it was easy to criticize. Those who can't accomplish- criticize endlessly.

Define for me what 'accomplishment' is? Sure, leninists got to rename a few country's and redesign a few flags but within a generation their states had either become bureaucratic oligarchy's or capitalism with a red flag. The communist party's of Russia and China came to power, but where are those country's working classes now?

'Left-Marxists' and Council Coummunists may never have named a country but that have also never devolved into anti-working class tyrants. No sect on the left has truly accomplished what we want, its time for some of us to stop pretending otherwise.

[Nolan]

Define for me what 'accomplishment' is? Sure, leninists got to rename a few country's and redesign a few flags but within a generation their states had either become bureaucratic oligarchy's or capitalism with a red flag. The communist party's of Russia and China came to power, but where are those country's working classes now?

'Left-Marxists' and Council Coummunists may never have named a country but that have also never devolved into anti-working class tyrants. No sect on the left has truly accomplished what we want, its time for some of us to stop pretending otherwise.

Despite their rhetoric, Left, Trot, and Council Communist parties would end up doing the same thing as the Soviet Union and Maoist China. As long as we're fighting capitalist superpowers and their puppets, some kind of bureaucracy is needed.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Define for me what 'accomplishment' is? Sure, leninists got to rename a few country's and redesign a few flags but within a generation their states had either become bureaucratic oligarchy's or capitalism with a red flag. The communist party's of Russia and China came to power, but where are those country's working classes now?

'Left-Marxists' and Council Coummunists may never have named a country but that have also never devolved into anti-working class tyrants. No sect on the left has truly accomplished what we want, its time for some of us to stop pretending otherwise.
"What we want" is a three-step goal:

1. Abolish capitalism.
2. Establish socialism.
3. Move on to communism.

No sect on the left has accomplished steps 2 and 3. But at least the Leninists accomplished step 1. No one else got that far. That is accomplishment. Sure, it isn't much, and perhaps the Leninist path brings us to a dead end, but so far it has been the only method proven capable of actually destroying capitalism. If "Left-Marxists and Council Communists" are unable to destroy capitalism, then it does not matter how right they may be in their plans for post-capitalist society.

[Kayser_Soso]

Define for me what 'accomplishment' is? Sure, leninists got to rename a few country's and redesign a few flags but within a generation their states had either become bureaucratic oligarchy's or capitalism with a red flag. The communist party's of Russia and China came to power, but where are those country's working classes now?

'Left-Marxists' and Council Coummunists may never have named a country but that have also never devolved into anti-working class tyrants. No sect on the left has truly accomplished what we want, its time for some of us to stop pretending otherwise.

Maybe to you speaking in 2009 they accomplished nothing. But to millions of people back in 1917 it was "something". Like I offered another poster here, if they wish I will introduce them to some of the old women begging outside of churches in Moscow, people old enough to have lived through Stalin's time, and I will help translate while they explain to them the horrors of "Stalinism". I guarantee you they won't the strength to slap you.

Well now, lets look at what those two groups you mentioned HAVE done and still do.

1. Real-world accomplishments: 0
2. Constant non-stop criticism of any real-world socialist state, often using anti-Communist sources or at least repeating the same claims word for word but from a "left" position, thus aiding the ruling class immensely. Check.

[robbo203]

"What we want" is a three-step goal:

1. Abolish capitalism.
2. Establish socialism.
3. Move on to communism.

No sect on the left has accomplished steps 2 and 3. But at least the Leninists accomplished step 1. No one else got that far. That is accomplishment. Sure, it isn't much, and perhaps the Leninist path brings us to a dead end, but so far it has been the only method proven capable of actually destroying capitalism. If "Left-Marxists and Council Communists" are unable to destroy capitalism, then it does not matter how right they may be in their plans for post-capitalist society.


Tut tut. "Abolished capitalism" indeed. It was the Bolsheviks who consolidated it in its state capitalist form


From the pen of V Lenin.

If the words we have quoted provoke a smile, the following discovery made by the "Left Communists" will provoke nothing short of Homeric laughter. According to them, under the "Bolshevik deviation to the right" the Soviet Republic is threatened with "evolution towards state capitalism". They have really frightened us this time! And with what gusto these "Left Communists" repeat this threatening revelation in their theses and articles. . . . It has not occurred to them that state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months' time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country. [...] But what does the word "transition" mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question. Let us enumerate these elements: 1) patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming; 2) small commodity production (this Includes the majority of those peasants who sell their grain); 3) private capitalism; 4) state capitalism; 5) socialism. Russia is so vast and so varied that all these different types of socio-economic structures are intermingled. This is what constitutes the specific features of the situation. [...] In the first place, economically, state capitalism is immeasurably superior to our present economic system.

Lenin, "Left-Wing" Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality", 1918.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm

What is state capitalism under Soviet power? To achieve state capitalism at the present time means putting into effect the accounting and control that the capitalist classes carried out. We see a sample of state capitalism in Germany. We know that Germany has proved superior to us. But if you reflect even slightly on what it would mean if the foundations of such state capitalism were established in Russia, Soviet Russia, everyone who is not out of his senses and has not stuffed his head with fragments of book learning, would have to say that state capitalism would be our salvation. I said that state capitalism would be our salvation; if we had it in Russia, the transition to full socialism would he easy, would be within our grasp, because state capitalism is something centralised, calculated, controlled and socialised, and that is exactly what we lack: we are threatened by the element of petty-bourgeois slovenliness, which more than anything else has been developed by the whole history of Russia and her economy, and which prevents us from taking the very step on which the success of socialism depends. [...] Only the development of state capitalism, only the painstaking establishment of accounting and control, only the strictest organisation and labour discipline, will lead us to socialism. Without this there is no socialism. (Applause.) [...] Comrade Bukharin is completely wrong; and I shall make this known in the press because this question is extremely important. I have a couple of words to say about the Left Communists' reproaching us on the grounds that a deviation in the direction of state capitalism is to be observed in our policy; now Comrade Bukharin wrongly states that under Soviet power state capitalism is impossible. So he is contradicting himself when he says that there can be no state capitalism under Soviet power-that is an obvious absurdity. The large number of enterprises and factories under the control of the Soviet government and owned by the state, this alone shows the transition from capitalism to socialism, but Comrade Bukharin ignores this.

Lenin, Session of the All-Russia C.E.C.., april 1918

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/29.htm

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Tut tut. "Abolished capitalism" indeed. It was the Bolsheviks who consolidated it in its state capitalist form

From the pen of V Lenin.

[...]
Ok, so Lenin said that (a) state capitalism is an improvement over "competitive" capitalism, and (b) some short period of state capitalism was necessary in Russia before socialism - and by "short", he meant no more than a couple of years.

I agree on both counts.

But, more to the point, the quotes you've provided are entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. This is Lenin talking in 1918 about Russia in 1918. It is in the first year of the revolution, before the Civil War, before War Communism, before the NEP, before the creation of the central planning system that characterized Soviet society from 1929 to 1989. For better or for worse, what Lenin had to say about the future of Russia in the spring of 1918 bore no relationship whatsoever to the actual Soviet system that took shape later.

[Green Dragon]

"What we want" is a three-step goal:

1. Abolish capitalism.
2. Establish socialism.
3. Move on to communism.

No sect on the left has accomplished steps 2 and 3. But at least the Leninists accomplished step 1. No one else got that far. That is accomplishment. Sure, it isn't much, and perhaps the Leninist path brings us to a dead end, but so far it has been the only method proven capable of actually destroying capitalism.

So what does it mean to revlefters when the only method proven able to destroy capitalism gets you nowhere?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So what does it mean to revlefters when the only method proven able to destroy capitalism gets you nowhere?
To me, it means that we have a lot to learn from Leninism, but that we should not attempt to blindly resurrect it or copy the revolutions of the past.

[robbo203]

Ok, so Lenin said that (a) state capitalism is an improvement over "competitive" capitalism, and (b) some short period of state capitalism was necessary in Russia before socialism - and by "short", he meant no more than a couple of years.

I agree on both counts.

But, more to the point, the quotes you've provided are entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. This is Lenin talking in 1918 about Russia in 1918. It is in the first year of the revolution, before the Civil War, before War Communism, before the NEP, before the creation of the central planning system that characterized Soviet society from 1929 to 1989. For better or for worse, what Lenin had to say about the future of Russia in the spring of 1918 bore no relationship whatsoever to the actual Soviet system that took shape later.

Not so. From the beginning to the end, the Soviet Union had these features - wage labour, commodity production, capitalism accumulation, markets, section class ownership (via political control of the state) with significant economic inequalities). These are all core features of capitalism. The fact that capitalism was administered by the state does not make it any the less capitalism

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Not so. From the beginning to the end, the Soviet Union had these features - wage labour, commodity production, capitalism accumulation, markets, section class ownership (via political control of the state) with significant economic inequalities). These are all core features of capitalism. The fact that capitalism was administered by the state does not make it any the less capitalism
1. What precisely do you mean by wage labour? It is not enough for workers to receive some monetary compensation in order for society to have capitalist wage labour. Capitalist wage labour means that workers are paid according to the exchange-value of their labour power, and it also means that employers extract surplus value from the workers. This was not the case in the Soviet system. Yes, workers were paid, so the Soviet system had a monetary economy. But a monetary economy is a much broader concept than capitalist wage labour.
2. Commodity production means production for exchange, production for the markets. Goods in the Soviet system were produced to fulfill plan targets, not for exchange. The Soviet system, for the most part, did not have commodity production.
3. Yes, there was accumulation. But you cannot call it capitalist accumulation unless you wish to claim that all accumulation is capitalist, which would be absurd.
4. There was buying and selling, but, under the planning system, all prices were set by the state. Thus it cannot be said that capitalist markets existed to any significant degree.
5. Yes, one group of people had control over the means of production. But this is a common feature of all class societies, not a particular feature of capitalism.
6. Economic inequalities were significantly lower in countries with Soviet-style societies than in capitalist countries. In 1986, the Gini coefficient was 0.19 in Czechoslovakia, 0.22 in Hungary, 0.24 in Poland and 0.27 in the USSR. (source: Communism, A Very Short Introduction, by Leslie Holmes, p. 82) By comparison, according to the United Nations, the lowest Gini coefficient in the world right now is 0.25 (in Denmark). And before you ask - they have no data on Cuba or North Korea.

In brief, although the Soviet system did share a few things in common with capitalism, those things are common to all class societies. The fact that they existed in the Soviet system doesn't make it "capitalist" any more than the Holy Roman Empire (for example) was "capitalist".

[Niccolò Rossi]

Left-Marxists and Council Communists who denounced the Soviet Union usually lived in privileged Western nations and never really accomplished much in the way of struggle against capitalism, so of course it was easy to criticize. Those who can't accomplish- criticize endlessly.

You don't know what you are talking about. It was amongst the countries in which historically the working class has come the closest to seizing power that the communist left has found it's strongest base, namely Italy and Germany.

The 'argument' that the activity of the communist left currents is comprised solely of criticism is pathetic. Not only is it repeated ad nauseum, it is completely baseless.


No sect on the left has accomplished steps 2 and 3. But at least the Leninists accomplished step 1. No one else got that far. That is accomplishment. Sure, it isn't much, and perhaps the Leninist path brings us to a dead end, but so far it has been the only method proven capable of actually destroying capitalism. If "Left-Marxists and Council Communists" are unable to destroy capitalism, then it does not matter how right they may be in their plans for post-capitalist society. Speaking for the communist left, we do not have as our goal, the task of destroying capitalism ourselves. Only the international working class as a whole can accomplish such a task, contrary to your claim.

Also, if the 'Leninists' succeeded in abolishing capitalism, but failed to create socialism, pray tell, what were these societies?

[Kayser_Soso]

You don't know what you are talking about. It was amongst the countries in which historically the working class has come the closest to seizing power that the communist left has found it's strongest base, namely Italy and Germany.



Yeah, sure you did.

[ComradeMan]

This is what I call a good thread- a heated debate without death threats, infractions and insults-

Some good points made on all sides.

I would give thanks, but I'm in the gulag now :D !!!!

[cb9's_unity]

"What we want" is a three-step goal:

1. Abolish capitalism.
2. Establish socialism.
3. Move on to communism.

No sect on the left has accomplished steps 2 and 3. But at least the Leninists accomplished step 1. No one else got that far. That is accomplishment. Sure, it isn't much, and perhaps the Leninist path brings us to a dead end, but so far it has been the only method proven capable of actually destroying capitalism. If "Left-Marxists and Council Communists" are unable to destroy capitalism, then it does not matter how right they may be in their plans for post-capitalist society.

Abolished? More like postponed. And abolishing capitalism is nothing without establishing a healthy working class socialist democracy.

After 1917 the working class of russia was nearly obliterated, they went through horrors to put Lenin and Stalin in power. Do you think if you told them that their children would have as much say in government as they did, would they have still supported an immediate revolution and put so much power in their 'advanced' professional revolutionary's?

Leninist's have to realize that they have put working classes around the world through hell to do nothing more than put a Leninist party in power. That in itself is not an accomplishment, in fact the death and destruction is a net loss until real socialism can be established. The failure of Leninist party's have given stacks of material for propaganda for the capitalists to use against communist party's as a whole.

The whole left has to take responsibility for not yet accomplishing what we set out to do. But it's disgraceful for Leninists to hide their own faults behind a pile of working class body's. Some Leninists actually have the respect to not pretend that their failed projects are any sort of positive.

[robbo203]

1. What precisely do you mean by wage labour? It is not enough for workers to receive some monetary compensation in order for society to have capitalist wage labour. Capitalist wage labour means that workers are paid according to the exchange-value of their labour power, and it also means that employers extract surplus value from the workers. This was not the case in the Soviet system. Yes, workers were paid, so the Soviet system had a monetary economy. But a monetary economy is a much broader concept than capitalist wage labour.


Wage labour is wage labour - the alienation and sale of labour power in return for a wage - in any society incuding even Ancient Rome where there was some wage labour. What makes capitalism capitalism is the generalisation of wage labour. In the soviet union the vast majority of the population were wage workers from which we can conclude that the soviet union was a capitalist state. It certainly was the case that the employers in the Soviet Union in the form of state enterprises extracted surplus value from Russian employees. Indeed in the early years of the SU foreign companies were induced to invest there by the lure of profits which by international standards were remarkably high. Without surplus value there would have been no programme of capital accumulation and the soviet union would not have been able to industrialise. Like Marx said , wage labour presupposes capital - and hence capitalism


2. Commodity production means production for exchange, production for the markets. Goods in the Soviet system were produced to fulfill plan targets, not for exchange. The Soviet system, for the most part, did not have commodity production.



This is complete nonsense. Of course there was commodity production - not only in respect of goods and services purchased by citizens but also in respect of the relationship between state enterprises which were commercial relationships involving legally binding contracts and the like. Indeed, state enterprises each had their own profit and loss account and were obliged to pursue profit maximisation as a goal, part of which was channelled upwards to the state level. Agencies like GOSSNAP (State Commission for Materials and Equipment Supply) affectively acted as supply agents for state enterprises.

You grossly exaggerate the role on central planning in the Soviet Union. In fact there was not a single plan in the entire history of the Soviet Union that was ever strictly fulfilled. Usually what happened was that plans often only became available well into the supposed planning implementation period and even then they were constantly revised to fit the changing facts. Instead of guiding production , the plans were guided by production , by the economic realities on the ground.

Also remember that before the process of aggregation and approval, GOSPLAN had to negotiate and bargain with state enterprises over their particular requirements and of course that latter would approach this from the perspective of meeting their needs to make a profit which would distort a lot of the information that planners used. You need also to bear in mind that, apparently comprehensive though the plans were, a considerably amount of decisionmaking necessarily had to be devolved to enterpirse level such as the hiring of labour and the technical mix of components



3. Yes, there was accumulation. But you cannot call it capitalist accumulation unless you wish to claim that all accumulation is capitalist, which would be absurd.


No I said there was specifically capital accumulation and hence capitalist accumulation.



4. There was buying and selling, but, under the planning system, all prices were set by the state. Thus it cannot be said that capitalist markets existed to any significant degree.


Regulated markets in no way alter the fact that it is still a capitalist market. Leninists , like liberal bourgeois economists, make much of the point that without the free play of the market, without a free market, you dont really have capitalism. This is nonsense. Even in so called western capitalist states, governments have often intervened to set or limit prices including of course the price of labour power and provide subsidies and the like. The law of value still applies no matter how regulated the market may be. Prices do equilibriate with values at the aggregate level but there is nothing to stop prices and values diverging at the microlevel and indeed as Marx observed this would tend to be the rule under capitalism


5. Yes, one group of people had control over the means of production. But this is a common feature of all class societies, not a particular feature of capitalism.


So the Soviet Union you admit was a class society. You have agreed also that it was a society in which a proletariat exists (leninists can hardly deny that since the whole mythology of the "proletarian state" depends on the existence of such a class). So if you have a proletariat then by definition this means you have a class that is divorced from the means of production and for that reason has to sell its labour power in exchange for a wage. It follows that there has to be a capitalist class to whom Soviet workers sold their labour power. That capitalist class was comprised of those who had control of the state and were in a position to make allocative decisions affecting the economy. As Engels rightly said
The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head (Socialism Utopian and Scientific)



6. Economic inequalities were significantly lower in countries with Soviet-style societies than in capitalist countries. In 1986, the Gini coefficient was 0.19 in Czechoslovakia, 0.22 in Hungary, 0.24 in Poland and 0.27 in the USSR. (source: Communism, A Very Short Introduction, by Leslie Holmes, p. 82) By comparison, according to the United Nations, the lowest Gini coefficient in the world right now is 0.25 (in Denmark).

The Soviet Union was a highly unequal society - even the above data demonstrates that the gini coeffeicient is lower in Denmark than it was in the USSR . Whether it was less so than other capitalist states is debatable. It depends on your source and how you measure inequality. Also you have to remember that the Soviet Union was a huge area and there were marked regional differences. However you need to bear in mind a number of salient points. Firstly the higher you went in the economic hierarchy the more likely were you to receive multiple salaries. Secondly, probably more important than monetary incomes was payment in kind and again the higher in the hierarchy you went the more significant was this factor e.g. dachas, limos, hlidays abroad, access to exclusive retail outlets and so on. Taking both monetary and non-monetary incomes into account, Roy Medvedev (Khrushchev: The Years in Power ,Columbia University Press. 1976, 540),the ratio of lowest to higher income earners was something like 1:100 . Thirdly, in the post war years a further factor emerged which was the growing black economy. There is now considerable evidence that members of the nomenklature were increasingly during this period forging links with the Soviet Mafia. As ive said before, the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed is not surprising at all. This was driven essentially by the changing needs of the Soviet ruling class - the red bourgeoisie - who effected a "revolution from above" by ditching state capitalism for corporate capitalism. So much for the leninist theory of the vanguard party! The very people who lenin entrusted to "lead" the workers to "socialism" ended up leading the workers into a form of capitalism which even they would recognise as capitalism

[Orange Juche]

Left-Marxists and Council Communists who denounced the Soviet Union usually lived in privileged Western nations and never really accomplished much in the way of struggle against capitalism, so of course it was easy to criticize. Those who can't accomplish- criticize endlessly.

Where do you live and what have you accomplished?

[Orange Juche]

Despite their rhetoric, Left, Trot, and Council Communist parties would end up doing the same thing as the Soviet Union and Maoist China. As long as we're fighting capitalist superpowers and their puppets, some kind of bureaucracy is needed.

I'd like to see some evidence to support your hypothesis, because otherwise, this is simply meaningless conjecture.

[Kayser_Soso]

Where do you live and what have you accomplished?

I live in Moscow and "my side", that is Marxist Leninists, eliminated illiteracy across Eastern Europe and Central Asia, doubled lifespans, modernized backwaters, liberated women, crushed fascists, eliminated diseases, etc.

Let's see left Communism's accomplishments.

[ComradeMan]

Ouch...:D

[robbo203]

I live in Moscow and "my side", that is Marxist Leninists, eliminated illiteracy across Eastern Europe and Central Asia, doubled lifespans, modernized backwaters, liberated women, crushed fascists, eliminated diseases, etc.

Let's see left Communism's accomplishments.

Its a curious thing - isnt it? - how politicians of all hues claim the credit for things done by the working class. So called marxist-leninists are no exception in that respect

[Nolan]

Its a curious thing - isnt it? - how politicians of all hues claim the credit for things done by the working class. So called marxist-leninists are no exception in that respect

:rolleyes:

So you condemn the Marxist-Leninist states as overly "bureaucratic" most of the time, but when their positive achievements are discussed, it was all on the workers.

At least be consistent, please. Were they all "bureaucratic state capitalist" or not? Maybe you should consider the idea that the Vanguard parties empowered the workers to do such things, as was intended?

[robbo203]

:rolleyes:

So you condemn the Marxist-Leninist states as overly "bureaucratic" most of the time, but when their positive achievements are discussed, it was all on the workers.

Of course. The state - all states - is a parasitic imposition, a tool of the ruling class. The wealth of society is produced not by the capitalist class nor its creature, the modern state, but by the working class


At least be consistent, please. Were they all "bureaucratic state capitalist" or not? Maybe you should consider the idea that the Vanguard parties empowered the workers to do such things, as was intended?


The vanguard did nothing of the sort. Nor was it the intention that it should empower the workers. Quite the opposite.

So you get lenin writing in an article in Isvestiya in April 1918 about the need to measure labour productivity and to organise the "study and teaching of the Talyor system". "Unquestioning submission to a single will", he maintained, "is absolutely necessary for the success of the labour process...the revolution demands, in the interests of socialism, that the masses unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process" . In the same month, at the trade union congress Lenin talked about the "necessity of recognising the dictatorial authority of single individuals for the purpose of carrying out the soviet idea".

Then there was Trotsky in 1920 talking about the 'militarisation of labour'. He commented at the 9th party congress of March 1920 that "The working class cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers" and "Deserters from labour ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps" .


Perhaps you might care to elaborate on how exactly you imagine such sentiments are conducive to "empowering the workers"?

[Robert]

"Unquestioning submission to a single will", he maintained, "is absolutely necessary for the success of the labour process...the revolution demands, in the interests of socialism, that the masses unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process"

Well. I'll. Be. Damned. Thank you.

More please.

[Nolan]

Of course. The state - all states - is a parasitic imposition, a tool of the ruling class. The wealth of society is produced not by the capitalist class nor its creature, the modern state, but by the working class

Well no shit I agree with this. Who doesn't? I never implied in any way the state created the wealth.

You DO know Lenin and Trotsky wanted to dismantle the state eventually, like every Marxist? But no, I forgot they wanted to enslave the workers to a dictator forever. :rolleyes:


The vanguard did nothing of the sort. Nor was it the intention that it should empower the workers. Quite the opposite.

So you get lenin writing in an article in Isvestiya in April 1918 about the need to measure labour productivity and to organise the "study and teaching of the Talyor system". "Unquestioning submission to a single will", he maintained, "is absolutely necessary for the success of the labour process...the revolution demands, in the interests of socialism, that the masses unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process" . In the same month, at the trade union congress Lenin talked about the "necessity of recognising the dictatorial authority of single individuals for the purpose of carrying out the soviet idea".

Then there was Trotsky in 1920 talking about the 'militarisation of labour'. He commented at the 9th party congress of March 1920 that "The working class cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers" and "Deserters from labour ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps" .


Perhaps you might care to elaborate on how exactly you imagine such sentiments are conducive to "empowering the workers"?

Ahh, the good ol' creationist tactic of quote-mining. I see youve been learning from the very lords of all bullshitters.

The Soviet Union was in no way ready for Socialism at the time, and they needed to do that. These were temporary measures. Need I remind you the Soviet Union had just got out of the biggest war yet at the time? And that they were fighting the Whites? And that they had all kinds of other enemies? Please don't take anyone's words out of context.

But this simply reflects the fact that you're a utopian. Your ilk has the ridiculous idea that all the planets were aligned for a workers utopia when Socialist revolutions occurred, and it was the big bad "Leninists" that somehow messed it up.

Now I guess you could rightfully apply the title of despotic dictator to Stalin, but then there was the collectivization, industrialization, World War 2, and the Cold War with all that entailed, so that's debatable. Hell, Stalin is the man either way.

So yes, the vanguards did empower the proletariat. Just not in the way that would be your cup of tea.

Now Robert's on the Mises forum spewing that bs, and the Austrian drones will eat it up. Thanks, robbo.

[Nolan]

Well. I'll. Be. Damned. Thank you.

More please.

On a high horse are we? :rolleyes:

[robbo203]

Well no shit I agree with this. Who doesn't? I never implied in any way the state created the wealth.

You DO know Lenin and Trotsky wanted to dismantle the state eventually, like every Marxist? But no, I forgot they wanted to enslave the workers to a dictator forever. :rolleyes:.

Of course I know they "said" that. They could hardly not say that if they wanted to present themselves as "marxists". My point is that in practice they departed radically from the marxian paradigm and there were marxists around at the time who warned the Bolsheviks of the state capitalist nature and outcome of their revolution and that it could never lead to socialism. They were proven right

BTW What do you mean "I forgot they wanted to enslave the workers to a dictator forever". Is that an admission that the workers were subjected to a temporary dictatorship (over the proletariat)



Ahh, the good ol' creationist tactic of quote-mining. I see youve been learning from the very lords of all bullshitters.

The Soviet Union was in no way ready for Socialism at the time, and they needed to do that. These were temporary measures. Need I remind you the Soviet Union had just got out of the biggest war yet at the time? And that they were fighting the Whites? And that they had all kinds of other enemies? Please don't take anyone's words out of context. .

They are not out of context. It is pretty clear what they mean. Lenin and Trotsky were intent upon exercising the most ruthless control over the proletariat using capitalist techniques of management such as Taylorism, introducing one man management , embarking on a labour militarisation priogrammes , abolishing the power of workers councils and the like in order to build up their state capitalist system. Its pretty obvious where your sympathisies lie and that is with the state capitalist bosses against the workers. Nuff said



But this simply reflects the fact that you're a utopian. Your ilk has the ridiculous idea that all the planets were aligned for a workers utopia when Socialist revolutions occurred, and it was the big bad "Leninists" that somehow messed it up. .

Not at all. You said it yourself . The Soviet union was nowhere ready for socialism. So I could hardly be arguing the case that it would have been possible to introduce socialism then could I? That would indeed be "utopian". My view is not essentially a conspiratorial one. The Bolsheviks had no option but to develop state capitalism. However they were seriously deluded in thinking this would somehow pave the way for socialism. History has proved just how wrong they were. The vanguard - the red bourgeosie - were the ones who were primarily responsible for ditching state capitalism in favour of corporate capitalism with the collapse of the soviet uniuon. So much for Lenin's anti-marxist theory of the vanguard. And before you so otherwise yes it was anti-marxist since in contradiction to the marxian position that the workers must emancipate themselves Lenin held that only the vanguard could do this and only the vanguard could administer a dictatorship of the proletariat. If you dont believe me check it out for yourself
.(http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/04.htm)


Now I guess you could rightfully apply the title of despotic dictator to Stalin, but then there was the collectivization, industrialization, World War 2, and the Cold War with all that entailed, so that's debatable. Hell, Stalin is the man either way.

So yes, the vanguards did empower the proletariat. Just not in the way that would be your cup of tea..

Oh right so you just ignore everything i said and jump straight to your comfortable but completely unsubstantiated conclusion that the vanguard did empower the workers rather than disempower them. Yeah great argument that :rolleyes:


Now Robert's on the Mises forum spewing that bs, and the Austrian drones will eat it up. Thanks, robbo.

I couldnt care a stuff frankly. The anarcho-caps are an irrelevance and the so called economic calculation argument has been pulverised beyond hope of resuscitation as far as I am concerned. But what interests me is why you should be concerned that Robert should should be posting quotes from Lenin and Trotsky on Mises.com. Is this an admission that you dont exactly feel comfortable with what Lenin and Trotsky had actually said? Maybe theres hope for you yet

[Kayser_Soso]

Did anyone ever tell you Robo, that Marx/Engels' writings are not some kind of holy prophesy, and that theory and practice almost always diverge in nearly any field?

[robbo203]

Did anyone ever tell you Robo, that Marx/Engels' writings are not some kind of holy prophesy, and that theory and practice almost always diverge in nearly any field?


Sure. But there comes a point when the theory and practice diverge so radically as to raise the question on what grounds can those who claim the Bolsheviks established some kind of socialist paradise can conceivably justify such a claim in the name of "socialism". BTW I dont treat Marx and Engels as gospel and there are a number of things which they said I which I reject and have said so on many occasions

[Kayser_Soso]

Sure. But there comes a point when the theory and practice diverge so radically as to raise the question on what grounds can those who claim the Bolsheviks established some kind of socialist paradise can conceivably justify such a claim in the name of "socialism". BTW I dont treat Marx and Engels as gospel and there are a number of things which they said I which I reject and have said so on many occasions

Wow, that's REALLY strange how reality in 1917 diverged so much from text written in the 1840s-90s. Who would have guessed that would happen.

And who the hell is using the term "socialist paradise"? Usually capitalist apologists use that term. I think it is you that believe that socialism is some kind of paradise.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I couldnt care a stuff frankly. The anarcho-caps are an irrelevance...
Yeah. So were the fascists, once. Giving ammunition to your enemies under the belief that they could never possibly pose a serious threat is incredibly stupid. All enemies of socialism should be taken seriously, no matter how irrelevant they may be at the moment. You never know what the future holds.

[robbo203]

Yeah. So were the fascists, once. Giving ammunition to your enemies under the belief that they could never possibly pose a serious threat is incredibly stupid. All enemies of socialism should be taken seriously, no matter how irrelevant they may be at the moment. You never know what the future holds.

Come again? "Giving ammunition to my enemies"? Hold on here, I quoted Lenin and Trostsky to doemnstrate their authoritarian contemptuous attitude and frankly capitalist towards the working class - like the need for the masses to "unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process" (Lenin) and for " Deserters from labour ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps" (Trotsky) and so on and so forth Yet you expect me to as a socialist to be on the side of people who can utter sentiments like that. Youve got to be joking. People who express such sentiments are my enemies and the enemies of the working class. Plainly.

And whats with this "giving ammunition to my enemies" anyway? That implies that what was "given" - the quotes from Lenin and Trotsky - were damming enough as serve as "ammunition" in the first place, doesnt it? Which begs the question - if you thought it was so damming why the fuck are you siding with people who can utter such sentiments in the first place!? Do you not consider that they have damned themsleves out of their own mouths? Has this not occured to you?

'Strewth, what a rdiculous argument!

[Nolan]

Come again? "Giving ammunition to my enemies"? Hold on here, I quoted Lenin and Trostsky to doemnstrate their authoritarian contemptuous attitude and frankly capitalist towards the working class - like the need for the masses to "unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process" (Lenin) and for " Deserters from labour ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps" (Trotsky) and so on and so forth Yet you expect me to as a socialist to be on the side of people who can utter sentiments like that. Youve got to be joking. People who express such sentiments are my enemies and the enemies of the working class. Plainly.

And whats with this "giving ammunition to my enemies" anyway? That implies that what was "given" - the quotes from Lenin and Trotsky - were damming enough as serve as "ammunition" in the first place, doesnt it? Which begs the question - if you thought it was so damming why the fuck are you siding with people who can utter such sentiments in the first place!? Do you not consider that they have damned themsleves out of their own mouths? Has this not occured to you?

'Strewth, what a rdiculous argument!

Robbo, you have no proof that they were against the working class other than a few quotes taken completely out of context. You act as if you have a monopoly on Socialism. Stop these pointless tirades before we start laughing.

[robbo203]

Robbo, you have no proof that they were against the working class other than a few quotes taken completely out of context. You act as if you have a monopoly on Socialism. Stop these pointless tirades before we start laughing.

OK since evidently you wouldnt know what constitutes "proof" if you tripped over it in the street let me put it this way - what do you make of statements such as these?:

"the masses (must( unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process"

" Deserters from labour ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps"

(I can multiply the number of examples of such sentiments from the sources many times over if you need further explication)

Do you consider such statements to be indicative of a "pro-worker" attitude? Yes or no?

[Nolan]

OK since evidently you wouldnt know what constitutes "proof" if you tripped over it in the street let me put it this way - what do you make of statements such as these?:

"the masses (must( unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process"

" Deserters from labour ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps"

(I can multiply the number of examples of such sentiments from the sources many times over if you need further explication)

Do you consider such statements to be indicative of a "pro-worker" attitude? Yes or no?

Weak sauce.

It's not so black and white. Here in Appalachia, we have a saying that everyone loves to abuse: "There's more than one way to skin a cat." (universal in the Anglosphere?? :confused:)

As was previously said, Marxism isn't some holy doctrine. Let's send you back to 1917 in a time machine, put you in Lenin's shoes, and see what YOU would end up having to do. They were simply being practical. War and building the economy set their priorities, not some fantastic agenda of impressing the bourgeois countries with a new land of freedom and worker's democracy flowing with milk and honey.

Of course, Socialism was never meant to face such a situation.

[robbo203]

Weak sauce.

It's not so black and white. Here in Appalachia, we have a saying that everyone loves to abuse: "There's more than one way to skin a cat." (universal in the Anglosphere?? :confused:)

As was previously said, Marxism isn't some holy doctrine. Let's send you back to 1917 in a time machine, put you in Lenin's shoes, and see what YOU would end up having to do. They were simply being practical. War and building the economy set their priorities, not some fantastic agenda of impressing the bourgeois countries with a new land of freedom and worker's democracy flowing with milk and honey.

Of course, Socialism was never meant to face such a situation.

So no answer to the question I asked you then? All you are really tring to say is that the Bolsheviks really had no other option - they were "simply being practical" after all - than to develop a particularly harsh and oppressive system of state capitalism though you cant bring yourself to frankly admit this

Like Lenin said Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism, that would be a victory. (Lenin's Collected Works Vol. 27 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/volume27.htm), p. 293,)

[Nolan]

So no answer to the question I asked you then? All you are really tring to say is that the Bolsheviks really had no other option - they were "simply being practical" after all - than to develop a particularly harsh and oppressive system of state capitalism though you cant bring yourself to frankly admit this

Like Lenin said Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism, that would be a victory. (Lenin's Collected Works Vol. 27 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/volume27.htm), p. 293,)

All this tells me is that you've pirated Lenin's term to play a game of semantics. I can't stress enough how this "state capitalism" was only temporary.

[robbo203]

All this tells me is that you've pirated Lenin's term to play a game of semantics. I can't stress enough how this "state capitalism" was only temporary.

The claim was that it would be temporary but the reality was that it turned out to be permanent until , that is, the Soviet elite - the red bourgeoisie - ditched state capitalism in favour of corporate capitalism in their "rrevolution from above" two decades ago

[Nolan]

The claim was that it would be temporary but the reality was that it turned out to be permanent until , that is, the Soviet elite - the red bourgeoisie - ditched state capitalism in favour of corporate capitalism in their "rrevolution from above" two decades ago

Then our problem is ensuring that that doesn't happen again. If Lenin and Stalin had lived and led revolutions in stable, developed countries with no threat of capitalist interference, I think they would have been as libertarian as anyone on this forum.

[Kayser_Soso]

The claim was that it would be temporary but the reality was that it turned out to be permanent until , that is, the Soviet elite - the red bourgeoisie - ditched state capitalism in favour of corporate capitalism in their "rrevolution from above" two decades ago

This happened because of the deliberate actions of certain individuals, largely a process that could have been prevented by the institution of certain checks and balances in the system and a better program of political education. This doesn't change the fact that socialism does not arise all at once as an ideal society. It begins as a process, and the commonality of some parts does not equal the commonality of the whole.

[robbo203]

Then our problem is ensuring that that doesn't happen again. If Lenin and Stalin had lived and led revolutions in stable, developed countries with no threat of capitalist interference, I think they would have been as libertarian as anyone on this forum.

In order to ensure that it doesnt happen again you have to learn from the mistakes of the past. Above all, you have to reject utterly and without reservation the anti-marxist theory that a small minority can take power and manage society in the interests of the great majority. This is specifically what lenin advocated most explicitly perhaps in Theses on Fundamental Tasks of The Second Congress Of The Communist International published in 1920. Of course the Bolsheviks had no option but to develop capitalism in its statist guise and much of the authoritariansm and anti-working class nature of their programme - even before the civil war - derives from the circumstances in which they found themselves. But not entirely. I think Bolshevik ideology also had a role to play in this and you cannot just cast the Bolsheviks in the role of being entirely the victims of adverse circumstances

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Come again? "Giving ammunition to my enemies"? Hold on here, I quoted Lenin and Trostsky to doemnstrate their authoritarian contemptuous attitude and frankly capitalist towards the working class...
You quoted them out of context and without any regard for the historical situation at the time. Like the fact that they were fighting a civil war, for example. See, during a civil war, when "deserters from labour" can cause the death of their comrades through their (in)action, it is acceptable to adopt harsh measures to ensure victory. Also, the term "concentration camp" was invented by the British during the Boer War, and the meaning it had before WW2 was much more benign than the meaning it has today (today it means "death camp"; back then it meant "open-air prison").


And whats with this "giving ammunition to my enemies" anyway? That implies that what was "given" - the quotes from Lenin and Trotsky - were damming enough as serve as "ammunition" in the first place, doesnt it? Which begs the question - if you thought it was so damming why the fuck are you siding with people who can utter such sentiments in the first place!?
Because I am not so mind-numbingly idiotic as to demand absolute compliance with communist ideals for every second of your life before I'll be willing to side with you. Sometimes, a communist may be in a position where he will have to compromise his ideals for the sake of victory. Sometimes, he may make wrong decisions in the heart of the moment. Sometimes he may act just plain stupid. But as long as he is fighting against capitalism and for communism, he is still my comrade.

If you got drunk one day and said stupid things, would you not prefer that we forgot about them, instead of bringing them up to accuse you of being ZOMG uncommunist? It's the same thing with Lenin and Trotsky here.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Above all, you have to reject utterly and without reservation the anti-marxist theory that a small minority can take power and manage society in the interests of the great majority.
I do reject that.


This is specifically what lenin advocated most explicitly perhaps in Theses on Fundamental Tasks of The Second Congress Of The Communist International published in 1920.
He was wrong.

But that does not mean that he wasn't right about other things. The views and actions of one man do not form a single package that must be accepted or rejected in its entirety. It is possible to accept some things and reject others.

[robbo203]

You quoted them out of context and without any regard for the historical situation at the time. Like the fact that they were fighting a civil war, for example. See, during a civil war, when "deserters from labour" can cause the death of their comrades through their (in)action, it is acceptable to adopt harsh measures to ensure victory. Also, the term "concentration camp" was invented by the British during the Boer War, and the meaning it had before WW2 was much more benign than the meaning it has today (today it means "death camp"; back then it meant "open-air prison")..

Nice try but you overlook that even before the civil war the anti-working class nature of Bolshevik policies was becoming more and more apparent. In an article in Isvestiya in April 1918 Lenin was already talking about the need to apply Taylorism to the management of workers. "Unquestioning submission to a single will", he maintained, "is absolutely necessary for the success of the labour process...the revolution demands, in the interests of socialism, that the masses unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process" . This is hardly an example of "workers control" (which Lenin had earlier paid lip service to in true opportunistic fashion). In the same month, at the trade union congress Lenin talked about the "necessity of recognising the dictatorial authority of single individuals for the purpose of carrying out the soviet idea". Already by March 1918 workers control was abolished on the railways and a decree was issued emphasising the need "iron labour discipline" and one man management.

You might also want to ask yourself why it was that after the civil war such ruthless authoritarian policies far from being abandoned were reinforced



Because I am not so mind-numbingly idiotic as to demand absolute compliance with communist ideals for every second of your life before I'll be willing to side with you. Sometimes, a communist may be in a position where he will have to compromise his ideals for the sake of victory. Sometimes, he may make wrong decisions in the heart of the moment. Sometimes he may act just plain stupid. But as long as he is fighting against capitalism and for communism, he is still my comrade.

If you got drunk one day and said stupid things, would you not prefer that we forgot about them, instead of bringing them up to accuse you of being ZOMG uncommunist? It's the same thing with Lenin and Trotsky here.

But all this is based on the assumption that the Bolsheviks were somehow in some real meaningful practical sense oriented towards the establishment of a communist sciety. They werent. Objectively all they could really do / and all they did do - was develop capitalism. Of course I dont dispute that there was a paper commitment to "communism". And indeed the Constitution of the USSR still talked of establishing communism right up to the end. But it was empty ritualism. Objectively they were commited to the development of state capitalism and since capitalism, whatever form it takes, cannot possibly operate in the interests of the working class, this is why socialists cannot possibly take the side of state capitalist regimes. They are not our "comrades" to use your term. They are our class enemies and you need to wake up to this fact. Like I said, it was the Soviet elite - the red bourgeoisie - who were the ones who were instrumental above all in the ditching of state capitalism and embracing corporate capitalism two decades ago in their "revolution from above", having tried to con the workers for decades that state capitalism was a necessary stage in the long march to a communiist society. History has shown conclusively that it is nothing of the sort

[Kayser_Soso]

A dogmatist is deeply saddened by the realization that reality doesn't correspond to theory.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

But all this is based on the assumption that the Bolsheviks were somehow in some real meaningful practical sense oriented towards the establishment of a communist sciety. They werent.
Many Bolsheviks fought and died for the cause of communism. To claim that they were somehow secretly supporting capitalism is to spit on the graves of thousands, perhaps millions of working class heroes.

I am done trying to talk sense into you.

[Kayser_Soso]

Many Bolsheviks fought and died for the cause of communism. To claim that they were somehow secretly supporting capitalism is to spit on the graves of thousands, perhaps millions of working class heroes.

I am done trying to talk sense into you.

Seconded. This forum doesn't need psychic mediums lecturing us about Communism and what people who have been dead for decades supposedly secretly thought.

[RGacky3]

They were simply being practical. War and building the economy set their priorities, not some fantastic agenda of impressing the bourgeois countries with a new land of freedom and worker's democracy flowing with milk and honey.

If thats practicle then I suppose socailsim is'nt practicle in your eyes, or Lenins, and the fact that THEY had the ability to make a desicion on policy and not the people proves its not socialism to begin with.


All this tells me is that you've pirated Lenin's term to play a game of semantics. I can't stress enough how this "state capitalism" was only temporary.

Yeah, when did it end? WHen was it giogn to end? When those who had authority just gave it up out of their good heart?


Because I am not so mind-numbingly idiotic as to demand absolute compliance with communist ideals for every second of your life before I'll be willing to side with you. Sometimes, a communist may be in a position where he will have to compromise his ideals for the sake of victory. Sometimes, he may make wrong decisions in the heart of the moment. Sometimes he may act just plain stupid. But as long as he is fighting against capitalism and for communism, he is still my comrade.

The point is the society should'nt have been up to one person who might make "wrong decisions", also compromosing ideals for the sake of victory, only works when the victory is actually based on the ideals, which in the USSR it was not.


A dogmatist is deeply saddened by the realization that reality doesn't correspond to theory.

Yeah, in theory the USSR was socialist, in reality it was not.


Many Bolsheviks fought and died for the cause of communism. To claim that they were somehow secretly supporting capitalism is to spit on the graves of thousands, perhaps millions of working class heroes.

I am done trying to talk sense into you.

NO one is claiming that they were secretly supporting capitalism, many people that vote for poletitions and fight for them today are not responsible for when the same polititions stab them in the back.

[ZeroNowhere]

Many Bolsheviks fought and died for the cause of communism. To claim that they were somehow secretly supporting capitalism is to spit on the graves of thousands, perhaps millions of working class heroes.

I am done trying to talk sense into you.
It would perhaps help if you weren't making his positions up before showing them the light of sense.


A dogmatist is deeply saddened by the realization that reality doesn't correspond to theory.If you mean that the Soviet Union did not correspond to how socialism was defined in the theory of Marx, De Leon and such, and therefore in reality it was redefined to mean a form of capitalism, that's probably justified. I'm not sure it's particularly dogmatic, though.

[robbo203]

Many Bolsheviks fought and died for the cause of communism. To claim that they were somehow secretly supporting capitalism is to spit on the graves of thousands, perhaps millions of working class heroes.

I am done trying to talk sense into you.

Many Bolsheviks might well have believed they fought and died for communism and I dont doubt the sincerity of their beliefs. But the plain fact is they didnt fight and die for communism. They fought and died for a state capitalist regime that was never ever going to deliver communism. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Soviet Union imploded and primarily at the hands of the Soviet ruling class - Lenin's vanguard - that ditched state capitalism in favour of corporate capitalism. When are you ever going to wake up to this very simple but incontrovertible fact?

[anticap]

I thought Robbo and Kwisatz might find this interesting: http://mltranslations.org/Ireland/ico.htm

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Many Bolsheviks fought and died for the cause of communism. To claim that they were somehow secretly supporting capitalism is to spit on the graves of thousands, perhaps millions of working class heroes.

I am done trying to talk sense into you.

Kwisatz, he isn't saying he thinks they were secretly supporting capitalism, he's saying that despite their communistic intentions, they were never going to achieve anything beyond a state capitalism.

Is it to "spit on the Grave" of anyone else when say that their strategy will not result in what they desire? Surely not!

I was enjoying your debate, and found it informative, I don't think you should give up just because of a misinterpretation such as this.

[robbo203]

Kwisatz, he isn't saying he thinks they were secretly supporting capitalism, he's saying that despite their communistic intentions, they were never going to achieve anything beyond a state capitalism.

Is it to "spit on the Grave" of anyone else when say that their strategy will not result in what they desire? Surely not!

I was enjoying your debate, and found it informative, I don't think you should give up just because of a misinterpretation such as this.


Dare I say it, and at the risk of being told by certain ignoramuses that I am treating what Marx said as a gospel, might I quote from his Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy as follows

In studying such transformations, it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic, or philosophic — in short, ideological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological) forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual) by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production

I think that rather neatly sums up the Bolshevik capitalist revolution which delivered state capitalism despite the earnest beliefs of a minority that it was headed towards socialism