When where USSR, China, Cuba, etc. socialist/communist? Were they ever? [Archive]

Barry Lyndon

5th April 2010, 03:43

These are the following countries that I believe were/are socialist in the Marxist sense, with the dates that I think they had a socialist economy. I define a country which is working toward the abolition of private property as socialist. I do not include many of the Eastern European regimes, because those regimes were imposed by the Soviet army and did not arise through indigenous revolution. I should add that I do not condone the policies or ideology of many of these regimes.

Paris Commune: 1871
Soviet Union: 1917-91
Mongolia: 1924-92
Republican Spain: 1936-39
Albania: 1944-91
Yugoslavia: 1945-92
North Korea: 1948-94
People's Republic of China: 1949-78
North Vietnam: 1954-75(Socialist Republic of Vietnam until 1986)
Cuba: 1961-present
Angola: 1974-92
Mozambique: 1975-90
Laos: 1975-89
Afghanistan: 1978-92
Nicaragua: 1979-90
Burkina-Faso: 1983-87
Zapatista-controlled Chiapas: 1994-present
Venezuela: 2006-present
Nepal: 2006-present

Kyrillic

5th April 2010, 05:32

Devrim

5th April 2010, 06:55

I don't think that any of them had a 'socialist economy'. In Russia unlike the rest though the working class was very briefly in power.

Devrim

5th April 2010, 07:31

Well buddy, I define a socialist society to be one that is ruled by the working class as a whole and it's economy is democratically managed and the means of production are owned collectively by the working class - none of that state/Bourgeoisie bullshit here.

Soviet Union: 1917-91
No. The workers councils (Soviets) had some political power for a while but they were soon disolved - and the means of production were never put into worker ownership. Blatantly capitalist by the end.

Republican Spain: 1936-39
I'm guessing. Is this Anarchist Spain? Then it pretty much was for a little while.

Albania: 1944-91
No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class.

Yugoslavia: 1945-92
No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class.

North Korea: 1948-94
No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class. Ruled by some shifty little cliche of a vanguard.

People's Republic of China: 1949-78
Interesting to see you took off everything after it went even further down the shitter...

No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class in the least.

North Vietnam: 1954-75(Socialist Republic of Vietnam until 1986)
No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class.

Cuba: 1961-present
No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class. There is a degree of workplace democracy if I recall correctly, though.

Venezuela: 2006-present
No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class. Workers councils are being introduced though as far as I know.

Nepal: 2006-present
Same deal if I recall correctly.

red cat

5th April 2010, 08:24

Palingenisis

5th April 2010, 17:07

If both PRC and USSR were socialist for such a long time, then how do you explain their worldwide contradictions ?

Also, what makes you think that Nepal is socialist at present ?

More to the point how on earth did Republican Spain and Venuzela get on that list????

The Idler

6th April 2010, 11:40

Although I'm sympathetic to Ukrainian Free Territory, Republican Spain and Chiapas territory, the SPGB say socialism has never been achieved anywhere.

jmlima

6th April 2010, 12:18

red cat

6th April 2010, 12:24

You're joking, right?

6th April 2010, 12:57

In some of the cases, socialist yes, at times, communist , never for the most:

Paris Commune: 1871 (communist, anarchist, either)
Soviet Union: 1917-91 (socialist, never communist)
Mongolia: 1924-92 (you're joking, right?)
Republican Spain: 1936-39 (socialist, anarchist, communist, everything, they had pockets of everything you can imagine, but there was never an unified standard)
Albania: 1944-91 (you're joking, right?)
Yugoslavia: 1945-92 (you're joking, right?)
North Korea: 1948-94 (you're joking, right?)
People's Republic of China: 1949-78 (you're joking, right?)
North Vietnam: 1954-75(Socialist Republic of Vietnam until 1986) (you're joking, right? If anything uncle Ho was first and foremost nationalist, and then socialist)
Cuba: 1961-present (socialist, with an hint of mild stalinism)
Angola: 1974-92 (fascist? dictatorial? corrupt?)
Mozambique: 1975-90 (fascist? dictatorial? corrupt?)
Laos: 1975-89 (fascist? dictatorial? corrupt?)
Afghanistan: 1978-92 (dictatorial? corrupt?)
Nicaragua: 1979-90 (fascist? dictatorial? corrupt?)
Burkina-Faso: 1983-87 (fascist? dictatorial? corrupt?)
Zapatista-controlled Chiapas: 1994-present (tribalist / nationalist / hint of socialism?)
Venezuela: 2006-present (dictatorial? corrupt?)
Nepal: 2006-present (dictatorial? corrupt?)
All claims of fascism should be withdrawn as it seems you have no clue of the meaning of the word. Excluding the DPRK (which for some reason you didn't label as dictatorial), none of the claims of dictatorship can be certified (that I know of, and I have no clue about the south Asian "socialist" states). Also, how could you possibly label the USSR as socialist? (The only hint of socialism was that the workers councils (Soviets) had some political significance early in the history of post-revolutionary Russia until they were disbanded (You can read up on this in another thread from ages ago)) And parts of Spain communist? Communism is a global, stateless, classless and moneyless (depending on your definition) society.

jmlima

6th April 2010, 13:08

All claims of fascism should be withdrawn as it seems you have no clue of the meaning of the word. Excluding the DPRK (which for some reason you didn't label as dictatorial), none of the claims of dictatorship can be certified (that I know of, and I have no clue about the south Asian "socialist" states). ...

The clue is in 'that you know of'.

(I would agree though is re-labbeling them as 'dictatorial')

C'mon, not wanting to be difficult, but short of dictatorial, how would you classify the following:

Angola, Mozambique, Albania, Yugoslavia, Laos, Nicaragua, Burquina?...

OCMO

6th April 2010, 13:10

I don't know where Angola and Mozambique were socialist. At the time of independence, both MPLA (Angola) and FRELIMO (Mozambique) had marxist-leninist ideals. But no country can achieve socialism or be in the road towards socialism if they are in a civil war and an open war with the US, China, South Africa and Rodesia. When peace was achieved, the spirit of socialism was dead. Prove of this is the family of the president of Angola being one of the most powerful families in the portuguese-speaking world and Mozambique being part of the Commonwealth.

jmlima

6th April 2010, 13:22

...When peace was achieved, the spirit of socialism was dead. Prove of this is the family of the president of Angola being one of the most powerful families in the portuguese-speaking world and Mozambique being part of the Commonwealth.

It's highly optimistic, to say that when peace was achieved the spirit of socialism was dead. MPLA and FRELIMO, short of the rethoric and organization, had virtually nothing of socialist.

6th April 2010, 14:26

The clue is in 'that you know of'.

(I would agree though is re-labbeling them as 'dictatorial')

C'mon, not wanting to be difficult, but short of dictatorial, how would you classify the following:

Angola, Mozambique, Albania, Yugoslavia, Laos, Nicaragua, Burquina?...
Ruled by shitty vanguard parties and not interested in the working class?

jmlima

6th April 2010, 14:42

Ruled by shitty vanguard parties and not interested in the working class?

That is a very short definition of what was happening over there.

And just because someone calls himself a socialist party, that does not necessarly mean it is one, or that it even aspires to be one. In this case, it means that was were the money and weapons were coming from.

OCMO

6th April 2010, 19:16

It's highly optimistic, to say that when peace was achieved the spirit of socialism was dead. MPLA and FRELIMO, short of the rethoric and organization, had virtually nothing of socialist.
MPLA was lead by Agostinho Neto, who had similar views has Fidel that runned the country that you called socialist. But Agostinho died in '79 and was replaced by the bastard that is still in power. Same stuff happened in Mozambique, the good ones died early and the corrupts lived far too long. But there is no lie in saying that both Angola and Mozambique were borned with socialist ideology, but they had no time to made significant policies since the infrastructures were destroyed over and over again.

jmlima

6th April 2010, 21:01

MPLA was lead by Agostinho Neto, who had similar views has Fidel that runned the country that you called socialist. But Agostinho died in '79 and was replaced by the bastard that is still in power. Same stuff happened in Mozambique, the good ones died early and the corrupts lived far too long. But there is no lie in saying that both Angola and Mozambique were borned with socialist ideology, but they had no time to made significant policies since the infrastructures were destroyed over and over again.

Sure, all good revolutionaries... Undoubtedly MPLA colonial war tactics were very progressive and socialist, under the benevolent leadership of comrade Neto. I wonder what sort of country would he intend to form?... I know I would not want to live in there though.

The Ben G

6th April 2010, 21:07

The Ben G

6th April 2010, 21:09

Soviet Union: 1917-22

Fixed that.

zimmerwald1915

6th April 2010, 21:13

Oh my...the stupid...she is everywhere...

OCMO

6th April 2010, 23:10

Sure, all good revolutionaries... Undoubtedly MPLA colonial war tactics were very progressive and socialist, under the benevolent leadership of comrade Neto. I wonder what sort of country would he intend to form?... I know I would not want to live in there though.
Arguments are nice, why don't you try to use them?

Robocommie

15th April 2010, 16:58

If both PRC and USSR were socialist for such a long time, then how do you explain their worldwide contradictions ?

Also, what makes you think that Nepal is socialist at present ?

Not trying to dispute what you're saying, merely wishing to better understand; what are these worldwide contradictions you mention?

red cat

15th April 2010, 17:08

Not trying to dispute what you're saying, merely wishing to better understand; what are these worldwide contradictions you mention?

Both accused each other of not being communist. Groups aligned to the Soviet and Chinese blocs fought wars. Communist parties divided into pro-Soviet and anti-revisionist factions.

sotsialist

15th April 2010, 17:17

spain was never socialist,some areas of it were controled by communists (republicans) but there was no revolution so it never became socialist \ communist. the rest had socialism going on(ignore these ultraleftists). nepal has arevolution process going but its not yet socialist.

Robocommie

15th April 2010, 17:33

Both accused each other of not being communist. Groups aligned to the Soviet and Chinese blocs fought wars. Communist parties divided into pro-Soviet and anti-revisionist factions.

I gotcha. What's your view of the Soviet installation of regimes in the Eastern Bloc?

red cat

15th April 2010, 17:47

I gotcha. What's your view of the Soviet installation of regimes in the Eastern Bloc?

We Maoists hold that the USSR had turned revisionist after Stalin. Deduce the rest. :)

Robocommie

15th April 2010, 17:52

We Maoists hold that the USSR had turned revisionist after Stalin. Deduce the rest. :)

Naturally, though the Eastern Bloc fell under Soviet control while Stalin was still alive, at the close of WWII. Do you mean then that the Eastern Bloc governments were properly socialist under Stalin's influence but began to turn revisionist after his death?

red cat

15th April 2010, 18:25

Naturally, though the Eastern Bloc fell under Soviet control while Stalin was still alive, at the close of WWII. Do you mean then that the Eastern Bloc governments were properly socialist under Stalin's influence but began to turn revisionist after his death?

The Eastern bloc did align itself with the revisionism after the death of Stalin, didn't it ?

Answering your question is difficult. Actually the Eastern Bloc, as far as I know, did not have revolutions of its own, but was liberated by Soviet forces. This was combined with the Soviet line of "cleansing from above" instead of class struggle from below. So, we will never know how radical the Eastern Bloc leaders really were. The case could have been that they did not show their true colours while Stalin was alive, I am not sure though. But yes, the system was socialist.

Robocommie

15th April 2010, 18:34

The Eastern bloc did align itself with the revisionism after the death of Stalin, didn't it ?

Answering your question is difficult. Actually the Eastern Bloc, as far as I know, did not have revolutions of its own, but was liberated by Soviet forces. This was combined with the Soviet line of "cleansing from above" instead of class struggle from below. So, we will never know how radical the Eastern Bloc leaders really were. The case could have been that they did not show their true colours while Stalin was alive, I am not sure though. But yes, the system was socialist.

It often occurs to me that the situation in the Eastern Bloc had to be very difficult. In some situations, like in Yugoslavia, there already was a strong Communist presence that could build socialism at all levels, rather than simply a socialist structure imposed from above. But then what are you going to do in that situation? It's 1946, you've got control of all this territory, and an obligation to help liberate the workers, so are you supposed to just shrug and say, "Eh, there's no organic revolution at the base level, won't work. Give it back to the capitalists."

Seems like a really tricky situation.

∞

15th April 2010, 18:46

Simple question with a simple answer. Communism is a STATELESS classless society... obviously these tyrannys had states.

red cat

15th April 2010, 19:06

It often occurs to me that the situation in the Eastern Bloc had to be very difficult. In some situations, like in Yugoslavia, there already was a strong Communist presence that could build socialism at all levels, rather than simply a socialist structure imposed from above. But then what are you going to do in that situation? It's 1946, you've got control of all this territory, and an obligation to help liberate the workers, so are you supposed to just shrug and say, "Eh, there's no organic revolution at the base level, won't work. Give it back to the capitalists."

Seems like a really tricky situation.

That is the whole point. The situation was very complicated indeed. And remember, communists had never ever come so close to a worldwide strategic equilibrium before. May be taking over and then conducting class struggle from below would help. But again, the communist bloc had not gained enough experience to deduce that line in the first place.

Robocommie

15th April 2010, 19:37

That is the whole point. The situation was very complicated indeed. And remember, communists had never ever come so close to a worldwide strategic equilibrium before. May be taking over and then conducting class struggle from below would help. But again, the communist bloc had not gained enough experience to deduce that line in the first place.

Sounds sensible. Hopefully with the lessons of the 20th century, the 21st century will see a return of that worldwide strategic equilibrium for socialism. I just hope we will all be wise enough to utilize them.

Kléber

16th April 2010, 19:41

Fixed that.
USSR never established socialism, let alone Bonapartist puppet regimes. Lenin said "it would be well if our grandchildren's generation were to establish it."

The Eastern bloc did align itself with the revisionism after the death of Stalin, didn't it ?
Sure, whatever the hell that means. In Romania, the anti-Stalinists who were in jail suddenly began to be attacked as "Stalinists.."

But again, the communist bloc had not gained enough experience to deduce that line in the first place.
You mean the Party somehow forgot the lessons of October 1917 and reverted to the Menshevik two-stage theory.

Ismail

16th April 2010, 21:15

Barry Lyndon, check your PM box.

Anyway, I'll obviously say that a great number of these were state-capitalist, but two things:

Republican Spain: 1936-39What? The government of Spain was bourgeois, if progressive. The Communists were growing in influence in the government, but nothing really radical was yet going on during the war besides land reform.

Nicaragua: 1979-90The Sandinistas were progressive, but they pretty much kept on shouting about how Nicaragua was a bourgeois-democratic government throughout the 1980's. The pursued a "mixed economy" (state and market capitalism).

Le People

26th April 2010, 04:21

I'm kinda sad that no one mentioned that Yugoslavia did have a fairly effective worker's council system that managed the factories on a shop level.

Ermo Kruus

27th April 2010, 16:37

1) Soviet Union didn't exist till 1922, Lenin created the RSFSR before the USSR.
2) North Korea is still officially socialist under the Juche Regime.
3) Vietnam is still offically a socialist nations, the official name of Vietnam is Socialtist Republic of Vietname.
4) Laos is still a socialist nation,
5) Communist Party of Moldova won the 2009 elections.

Vietnam and Laos is both heavily capitalist and are socialist in the name only. They are about as socialist as the People's Republic of China. The Communist Party of Moldova was in power until street protests led to their fall and new elections were held (or atleast I think so). The party is typical of the post-Soviet states, revisionist and corrupt. Vladimir Voronin, the leader of the party and previously president of Moldova, was in no way a communist. His family is one of the richest in Moldova and during his reign he privatized large parts of the economy.

Paul Cockshott

27th April 2010, 16:49

I don't think that any of them had a 'socialist economy'. In Russia unlike the rest though the working class was very briefly in power.

Devrim

The problem here is how one defines a socialist economy.

One way to do it would be to look at the public pronouncements of the socialist movement prior to 1914 and compare the economies of various countries with what had been the declared aims in their published programmes, of the earlier movement.

If one took this approach and compares say the DDR in 1975 with the aims set out by the Communist Manifesto, or the Erfurt Programme, the relevant antecedant party programmes to the SED, then the earlier goals had largely been met.

Another approach, more in keeping with the way other modes of production are studied would be to look at these actual societies and from their characteristics work out what a socialist economy must be, and what its laws of motion are. That of course is how we study capitalism - we look at real capitalist societies not the idealised abstractions put forward by free market economists.

One can then go on from this and critique the inadequacy of the programmatic formulations of the earlier movement in the light of later experience.

But unless you define in what sense you are using the word socialist economy it is hard to reach agreement.

Ismail

3rd May 2010, 22:35

bricolage

3rd May 2010, 22:42

It's worth noting that Marx did not consider the Paris Commune socialist.

As he said (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/letters/81_02_22.htm) in 1881: "Perhaps you will point to the Paris Commune; but apart from the fact that this was merely the rising of a town under exceptional conditions, the majority of the Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be."

Indeed.
The actual economic measures of the Commune were very minimal such as banning night work in bakeries and minor pensions to widows. The closest it got to anything remotely socialist was the 16th April decree which called for the collectivisation of abandoned workshops and the formation of co-ops. However it only referred to abandoned workshop and they were happy to pay the owners compensation, I don't even think many (if any) got collectivized, most probably due to the short amount of time they had available to do so.

As I've said before none of this is to slander the legacy or the acuality of the Commune. It was a radical experiment in direct democracy and decentralisation, in spatial redefinition and in rejection of the social and cultural roles imposed upon us. It is not coincidence that nearly every socialist/communist/marxist/anarchist etc writer since 1871 has written about it and it is not a time in history we should forget. Yet we have to be honest when dealing with it, simply proclaiming it 'socialist' just will not work.

RedLaw

3rd June 2010, 06:18

Simple question with a simple answer. Communism is a STATELESS classless society... obviously these tyrannys had states.

And within those states the dictatorship of the proletariat had replaced the
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

4 Leaf Clover

3rd June 2010, 12:01

3rd June 2010, 12:59

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
You're cool like that; posting wiki links and all. But nevertheless, you have presented me with an argument and I intend to shit on yours with mine.

Socialism is a political philosophy that encompasses various theories of economic organization based on either public (by public they mean state - which is a separate entity from the workers and peasants - so don't get disillusioned) or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production) and allocation of resources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resources).[1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#cite_note-SocialismAVeryShortIntroduction-0)] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#cite_note-SocialismAVeryShortIntroduction-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#cite_note-2)
Oooh. See what I did there? First paragraph in and your argument is already irrelevant.

Some socialists propose various decentralised, worker-managed economic systems. A de-centralized planned economy is one where ownership of enterprises is accomplished through various forms of worker cooperatives, autogestion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogestion) and planning of production and distribution is done from the bottom-up by local worker councils in a democratic manner.
Listen buddy. Wikipedia is very loosely defining socialism. Wikipedia's definitions go different ways - yours and mine. Next time you try to prove a point (which I still couldn't actually find in your reply - which was just a link, in fact), try to use a different source. And since different sources will have their biases, there will be no end to this specific argument of what constitutes socialism and what doesn't. What constitutes socialism these days seems to be a matter opinion; with some opinions benefiting the workers and some even removing the workers from processes of decision making and the like.

∞

8th June 2010, 18:51

And within those states the dictatorship of the proletariat had replaced the
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Thats a hardy laugh, even though all the means to produce were determined entirely by the state. That centrally-planned economics are such a failure that they had to resort to capitalism to stimulate GDP and to INCREASE the standard of living. Good job USSR! For suppressing freedom and dissent and creating a new form of dictatorship! Lets all play the tent game! Where either everyone is poor(MLism) or where people are extremely poor and exremely rich (Capitalism). Enough of these bullshit systems, let the workers control and create thier own wealth. (A)

Marxist-Leftist

8th June 2010, 21:42

Here's my opinion of what these examples are;

Paris Commune: 1871(Communist)
Soviet Union: 1917-91(State Socialist at best Degenerated Workers State)
Mongolia: 1924-92(Ignorant of this example)
Republican Spain: 1936-39(Republican bourgeois)
Albania: 1944-91(State Socialist)
Yugoslavia: 1945-92(State Socialist)
North Korea: 1948-94(State Socialist)
People's Republic of China: 1949-Present(at best State Socialist, Authoritarian Capitalism)
North Vietnam: 1954-75(State Socialist)
Cuba: 1961-present(State Socialist)
Angola: 1974-92(Ignorant of this example)
Mozambique: 1975-90(Ignorant of this example)
Laos: 1975-89(Ignorant of this example)
Afghanistan: 1978-92(State Socialist)
Nicaragua: 1979-90(Ignorant of this example)
Burkina-Faso: 1983-87(Ignorant of this example)
Zapatista-controlled Chiapas: 1994-present (Tribalist, Primitivist)
Venezuela: 2006-present(Populist Capitalist)
Nepal: 2006-present(Ignorant of this example)

vampire squid

8th June 2010, 22:08

fun fact: communism has never been tried, ever, because nobody can quite agree on what it is!

Roland-Marxista

9th June 2010, 03:20

In Venezuela, the conditions are not to speak of the existence of a socialist republic. Capitalism is losing ground in production to the social production companies, in addition to workers' control is being initiated at the heart of the new relations of production techniques.

The problem in Venezuela, lies in the fact that the superstructure of bourgeois court remains intact, so the internal bureaucracy, corruption and anti-Chavez, remains palpable ....

RedLaw

9th June 2010, 04:53

Thats a hardy laugh, even though all the means to produce were determined entirely by the state. That centrally-planned economics are such a failure that they had to resort to capitalism to stimulate GDP and to INCREASE the standard of living. Good job USSR! For suppressing freedom and dissent and creating a new form of dictatorship! Lets all play the tent game! Where either everyone is poor(MLism) or where people are extremely poor and exremely rich (Capitalism). Enough of these bullshit systems, let the workers control and create thier own wealth. (A)

Without a strong vanguard party to provide leadership you will always have
disorganization,instability and eventually chaos.
I'm not saying that the USSR in particular didn't make mistakes. We all want
power in the hands of the workers, But if that power is not ensured by a state
and a visionary leadership you will only be playing into the hands of the agents
and saboteurs and the capitalists will be up and running again in no time.

11th June 2010, 07:49

And within those states the dictatorship of the proletariat had replaced the
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
Oh that's laughable. Was the working class really in power? I think not.

Without a strong vanguard party to provide leadership you will always have
disorganization,instability and eventually chaos.
I'm not saying that the USSR in particular didn't make mistakes. We all want
power in the hands of the workers, But if that power is not ensured by a state
and a visionary leadership you will only be playing into the hands of the agents
and saboteurs and the capitalists will be up and running again in no time.
I consider you to be the first use of the term "Ultra-Leninist".

Maybe you should read up on anarchist theory. We do not advocate chaos and confusion, nor do we seek to create a situation where the conditions allow for the above to arise.

We seek to create organisation - only that organisation will not be hierarchial, it will be made up of a network of workers' councils (a manifestation of workers' self management), peoples' assemblies (for self-governance, etc.) with no power over one another (councils and assemblies on regional levels will only deal with issues such as standardisations and whatnot, though). Each council and assembly will be sovereign. We advocate direct democracy through these institutions - each person's vote counts for as much as the person next to them. The people must never be separate from the judicial and executive processes. "Judicial processes?" I hear you ask. Yes, we anarchists advocate laws and police, too - except these police will not function to protect private or state property rights. They will serve to enforce laws decided by the people. We do advocate organisation, just not hierarchial and authortarian forms of it.

We're a strange lot; we're anarchists and we don't want anarchy.
(In it's widely-accepted definition, anyway)

And on that question of the vanguard, read a quote from your Marx that you revere so:

The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself.

RedLaw

14th June 2010, 05:12

Every class has it's teacher,just as every ship has it's captain,just as every
people has it's leader and so on.
Our world is hierarchical. Whether it's the queen bee in her hive or the tribal
chief in his village.
Hierarchy has been and is humanity's,as well as nature's,way of providing
optimum structure and responsibility.
Intended or not,leaders emerge.Leadership emerges.And the most important
question is who will assume this pivotal role. Those on the side of the common
man or those aligned only with personal self interest.
It is of my opinion that there must always be a leadership or final authority. If
that coincides with what Marx believed or not,it is what my own eyes have
told me so.
Your seemingly hate or fear based opposition to any authority runs counter
to my own understanding of the neccessity and even natural human desire
for it.
I know little about the anarchist side of the movement,but much of what I
have been hearing seems to be an almost juvenile like stance denying any
accountability or responsibility and that having 'nothing beyond' autonomous
councils seems like a 'minimum solution' for not having to ever be told what
to do?
Your motto "No Gods,No Masters,No Bosses" sums it up pretty well.
I am not against workers' councils or peoples' assemblies,quite the contrary,
but I disagree that these can continue to function over a lengthy period of
time and their autonomy would be the seed for further fragmentation and
eventual disintegration into an even 'MadMax' type scenario that I,for one,
would not want to risk at any cost.
I think that purposely 'creating' a leadership vacum is a very dangerous kind
of action that can,and likely will,lead to extemely unsavory elements filling
that vacum.

Klaatu

14th June 2010, 06:32

Well buddy, I define a socialist society to be one that is ruled by the working class as a whole and it's economy is democratically managed and the means of production are owned collectively by the working class - none of that state/Bourgeoisie bullshit here.

No. The workers councils (Soviets) had some political power for a while but they were soon disolved - and the means of production were never put into worker ownership. Blatantly capitalist by the end.

I'm guessing. Is this Anarchist Spain? Then it pretty much was for a little while.

No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class.

No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class.

No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class. Ruled by some shifty little cliche of a vanguard.

Interesting to see you took off everything after it went even further down the shitter...

No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class in the least.

No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class.

No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class. There is a degree of workplace democracy if I recall correctly, though.

No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class. Workers councils are being introduced though as far as I know.

Same deal if I recall correctly.

Agreed. Where has Socialism ever flourished? In the end, the greed of someone in power (e.g. the Soviets) swoop down to capture a delicate and workable system, with their greed (in the case of Soviets: STATE capitalism) and crush the dream of workers' paradise... And then, here in the USA, you have guys like Glenn Beck driving the spikes into the proverbial coffin of Socialism. What will it take for the average person to realize and understand that a Socialistic system is in their best interest? When are people going to come to grips with the fact that the established capitalist elite class has got it's proverbial hand in their wallet? When will they wake up and realize that they are being lied to, stolen from, and taken for fools??? Taken for fools, that is, by the capitalist?

14th June 2010, 08:53

Every class has it's teacher,just as every ship has it's captain,just as every people has it's leader and so on.
Our world is hierarchical. Whether it's the queen bee in her hive or the tribal chief in his village.
Are you actually trying to justify your position by comparing us to insects in such a way that we should accept it as the natural order of things? I'm not calling you a fascist here, but that is a talking point used by fascists; "Hierarchy is good and natural, so we should accept it". Promotion of hierarchy is a sign of bad things to come.

Hierarchy has been and is humanity's,as well as nature's,way of providing optimum structure and responsibility.
Really? Optimum structure? How the hell is a bureaucracy optimum? It's rather inefficient and a waste of resources.

Intended or not, leaders emerge. Leadership emerges.
Rulers emerge - and that's a bad thing; one person having control over the lives of others. Leaders emerging is not the result of hierarchical systems. Leaders are just energetic and passionate people - they generally do not have authority over others. The emergence of leaders is something that we could even encourage as they do not usually have authority over others; rather, they serve as a guide, inspiration and an example.

And the most important question is who will assume this pivotal role. Those on the side of the common man or those aligned only with personal self interest.
All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I'll tell you what, you can lead a revolution - and then betray it by becoming a dictator or bureaucrat who claims to be on the side of the common man.

It is of my opinion that there must always be a leadership or final authority. If that coincides with what Marx believed or not,it is what my own eyes have told me so.
Wait... you're going to trust your own eyes on such an important matter after having only seen the capitalist system?

Your seemingly hate or fear based opposition to any authority runs counter to my own understanding of the necessity and even natural human desire for it.
Last I recall, worker-managed enterprises worked a whole lot better and were more productive. Were there power struggles for the possession of authority? No. Because there was no real economic privilege or benefit.

I know little about the anarchist side of the movement,
It shows.

but much of what I have been hearing seems to be an almost juvenile like stance denying any accountability or responsibility and that having 'nothing beyond' autonomous councils seems like a 'minimum solution' for not having to ever be told what to do?
Again, what good are bureaucrats? What good is power consolidated into the hands of a few? How will this help or advance the cause of workers and peasants? The aim should be for self-management and self-government; i.e., Autogestion and Autonomy. No-one should stand in the way of personal liberty and a free society.

Your motto "No Gods,No Masters,No Bosses" sums it up pretty well.
"No Gods, No Masters, No Chaos" is my variant. A boss is a master.

I am not against workers' councils or peoples' assemblies,quite the contrary, but I disagree that these can continue to function over a lengthy period of time and their autonomy would be the seed for further fragmentation
The sovereignty and authority of workers' councils has only ever been subverted due to state action - both external or internal. This has been achieved through laws (such as the one in which the Bolsheviks were able to destroy the sovereignty of the workers' councils (the Russian Soviets formed post-1918)) or military action (like how Franco defeated anarchist Catalonia). Had they not been defeated, the workers' councils would have thrived.

and eventual disintegration into an even 'MadMax' type scenario that I,for one, would not want to risk at any cost.
What the hell is a MadMax scenario?

I think that purposely 'creating' a leadership vacum is a very dangerous kind of action that can,and likely will,lead to extemely unsavory elements filling that vacum.
Precisely. The Soviets never should have allowed for the Bolsheviks to rule over them.

This is why we don't plan to create conditions that allow for parties and tyrants to subvert the autonomy of the workers' councils.

Blake's Baby

14th June 2010, 09:52

AK, I could kiss you sometimes. In a fraternal and non-predatory way of course.

...
What the hell is a MadMax scenario?....

Big hair and leather pants with the bums cut out as we all fight each other for oil tankers.

14th June 2010, 09:57

AK, I could kiss you sometimes. In a fraternal and non-predatory way of course.
:wub:

Big hair and leather pants with the bums cut out as we all fight each other for oil tankers.
Well, redlaw's a real idiot if they think that's going to happen.

Fietsketting

14th June 2010, 10:11

Without a strong vanguard party to provide leadership you will always have
disorganization,instability and eventually chaos.

Horrible. May i suggest you change your signature too: Party before People!

Uppercut

15th June 2010, 02:56

All power corrupts

That's not always true. A vanguard party can, in fact, operate in such a way that it allows the masses of the nation to participate, thus embodying proletarian dictatorship

Last I recall, worker-managed enterprises worked a whole lot better and were more productive. Were there power struggles for the possession of authority? No. Because there was no real economic privilege or benefit.

show me an example or two of the glorious "self-management" you speak of.

"No Gods, No Masters, No Chaos" is my variant. A boss is a master.

That's why elected management in the administration of a planned economy.

The sovereignty and authority of workers' councils has only ever been subverted due to state action - both external or internal. This has been achieved through laws (such as the one in which the Bolsheviks were able to destroy the sovereignty of the workers' councils (the Russian Soviets formed post-1918))

All I can say is that you seriously need to study the Soviet or Chinese socialist system...very thoroughly.

The Soviets never should have allowed for the Bolsheviks to rule over them.

Yeah, I'd much rather live under imperialist rule than have my share in the means of production.

This is why we don't plan to create conditions that allow for parties and tyrants to subvert the autonomy of the workers' councils.

It's very dogmatic to equate all socialist and Communist parties with tyranny. This is why anarchy has gotten us nowhere, even though it's been around longer than Marxism. You cannot abolish the state overnight as that ideals always results in a short lived stepping stone.

15th June 2010, 10:29

That's not always true. A vanguard party can, in fact, operate in such a way that it allows the masses of the nation to participate, thus embodying proletarian dictatorship
Please, for one, don't go droning on about "the nation". We're a class movement, remember?

show me an example or two of the glorious "self-management" you speak of.
Many of the smaller worker co-operatives scattered around the world.

That's why elected management in the administration of a planned economy.

That's not a proper sentence.
A manager is a master. Otherwise we would all be content with representative democracy... wait, you support that, don't you? The workers need to manage and govern themselves - not elect new rulers. It gets us nowhere.

All I can say is that you seriously need to study the Soviet or Chinese socialist system...very thoroughly.
Wait, you're trying to tell me the local soviets were sovereign and the final authority?

Yeah, I'd much rather live under imperialist rule than have my share in the means of production.
Perhaps a continuation of working-class revolution for a free society would have been better. But of course, according to you, it's either the USSR, PRC or capitalism. No room for opinions in between. Never mind that the common people (workers and peasants) didn't own the means of production; the state did.

It's very dogmatic to equate all socialist and Communist parties with tyranny. This is why anarchy has gotten us nowhere, even though it's been around longer than Marxism. You cannot abolish the state overnight as that ideals always results in a short lived stepping stone.
My mistake. I wasn't trying to make it sound like tyrants would immediately arise from party rule.

However, power consolidated into the hands of the central elements of the party constitutes the birth of a new class (or even just a regime change) according to anarchist class analysis. Your class analysis can differ, but I can't think that the party and it's bureaucracy will ever be on the same level as the workers and peasants once the party seizes power.

And besides, even if it was just a misinterpretation of my post, you are equally dogmatic and sectarian for claiming anarchism has gotten us nowhere.

Uppercut

15th June 2010, 16:34

Please, for one, don't go droning on about "the nation". We're a class movement, remember?

And a class movement can begin in either one country or many at the same time. Historically, it's been one country at a time.

Many of the smaller worker co-operatives scattered around the world.

On a local level, they can work. But they are not substantial for consolidating workers control over a large section of the economy. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of co-ops, but state ownership can bring social control of the means of production to a much wider scale.

A manager is a master.

In present day capitalist economies, yes, bosses and managers are usually oppressive and don't give a shit about the workers. But no matter what the production relations, there needs to be someone who plans. Elected management helps to contradict worker/management conflicts and management also takes part in labor, which helps to restrict bueaurocracy and bourgeoise-right. If the manager becomes bueaurocratic, he or she can be recalled.

Wait, you're trying to tell me the local soviets were sovereign and the final authority?

Pertaining to local matters, yes they did.

Perhaps a continuation of working-class revolution for a free society would have been better. But of course, according to you, it's either the USSR, PRC or capitalism. No room for opinions in between. Never mind that the common people (workers and peasants) didn't own the means of production; the state did.

This is a utopian statement lacking even the most elementary scientific analysis. Of course, it's difficult to have an analytical debate with someone who automatically considers state ownership to be the ultimate evil. Look at it this way, no matter what system the revolution brings, there will have to be an organization or force that connects the means of production in some matter for economic management. For anarchists, that might be through a giant union. For Communists, like myself, that will be the state. It is the form and content of the state, along with production relations that determine whether the workers and farmers are in control or not.

The state does not operate under a natural order that says no matter who is in government is corrupt. If a socialist/communist party comes to power and draws up a constitution, which states that "the means of production will be owned and controlled by the working class through through their local councils, and represented through the state" that would be a bad thing?

Your class analysis can differ, but I can't think that the party and it's bureaucracy will ever be on the same level as the workers and peasants once the party seizes power.

Form and content, comrade, form and content.

you are equally dogmatic and sectarian for claiming anarchism has gotten us nowhere.

Except that it hasn't...It's impossible to change the world's social order over night and abolish the state, at that. Sure, you've had Spanish Catalonia and whatnot, but no long term accomplishments because these experiments can't put up a sufficient defense.

Of course, post-revolution, you and your anarchist buddies can have your communes or whatever so long as it's not located next to a nuclear power plant or anything like that.

∞

15th June 2010, 17:31

And a class movement can begin in either one country or many at the same time. Historically, it's been one country at a time. Those of which led to a degenerate state....

"On a local level, they can work. But they are not substantial for consolidating workers control over a large section of the economy. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of co-ops, but state ownership can bring social control of the means of production to a much wider scale." Then wouldn't it be better if we had many small scale communities instead of one mis-representative piece of shit?
Although I doubt we'd face hardships large-scale because our methods put emphasis on the community, not central planning.

"In present day capitalist economies, yes, bosses and managers are usually oppressive and don't give a shit about the workers. But no matter what the production relations, there needs to be someone who plans. Elected management helps to contradict worker/management conflicts and management also takes part in labor, which helps to restrict bueaurocracy and bourgeoise-right."
If the manager becomes bueaurocratic, he or she can be recalled."-- YAY! Lets elect our slave master! You must be keen on American democracy. Central planning is one of the most stupid and archaic system to date. Must I go on about the ineffectiveness it had with the Soviet Union?

Pertaining to local matters, yes they did.

"This is a utopian statement lacking even the most elementary scientific analysis. Of course, it's difficult to have an analytical debate with someone who automatically considers state ownership to be the ultimate evil. Look at it this way, no matter what system the revolution brings, there will have to be an organization or force that connects the means of production in some matter for economic management. For anarchists, that might be through a giant union. For Communists, like myself, that will be the state. It is the form and content of the state, along with production relations that determine whether the workers and farmers are in control or not.

The state does not operate under a natural order that says no matter who is in government is corrupt. If a socialist/communist party comes to power and draws up a constitution, which states that "the means of production will be owned and controlled by the working class through through their local councils, and represented through the state" that would be a bad thing?"

Oh shi-- UTOPIAN! Nice slenderizing you degenerate swine. One question what about opposing ideologies, nevermind I'm sure the firing squad has the answer for me. How about another, if the working class already is able to organize and produce w/o the state, WHY DO WE NEED STATE OWNERSHIP AND CENTRAL PLANING? And if so how will you represent us without taking advantage of us? How can we achieve a classless society when the members of the party can control more means and are likely to make some profit? Your beloved Stalin and Mao lived rather lavishly if you ask me, Stalin wit his palaces and Rolls Royce. Or Mao in his lavish Chinese palace, the state loves it starving peasants.

Form and content, comrade, form and content.

"Except that it hasn't...It's impossible to change the world's social order over night and abolish the state, at that. Sure, you've had Spanish Catalonia and whatnot, but no long term accomplishments because these experiments can't put up a sufficient defense.

Of course, post-revolution, you and your anarchist buddies can have your communes or whatever so long as it's not located next to a nuclear power plant or anything like that."

Buddy, we had to fight a regime backed by Nazi Germany and Italy! We had around 600,00 militiamen at most. *Ehemmm* you guys would've got your asses kicked if it wasn't for Britain and America. You let the Nazis in STALINGRAD for 2 weeks! I think we put up a pretty good fight.

As long as we can have it fine,but don't put us in prison with everyone else you don't agree with, we have the tendency of burning them down.

Uppercut

15th June 2010, 18:10

Then wouldn't it be better if we had many small scale communities instead of one mis-representative piece of shit?

You don't know what you're talking about. "One mis-representative piece of shit", Ha! A centrally planned economy relies on local initiative combined with strong, centralized planning. No matter what system you're living under, there needs to be an overall plan for economic development As I stated before, workers take an active role in their role place discussing plans and management.

YAY! Lets elect our slave master! You must be keen on American democracy. Central planning is one of the most stupid and archaic system to date. Must I go on about the ineffectiveness it had with the Soviet Union?

Don't bother. Something tells me you know shit about the Soviet economy, or the socialist Chinese economy.

Lots of bullshit

I honestly don't think you're mature enough to have an adequate debate with. How about you go into the learning section for a while? Better yet, read a book.

You let the Nazis in STALINGRAD for 2 weeks!

don't put us in prison with everyone else you don't agree with, we have the tendency of burning them down.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

4 Leaf Clover

15th June 2010, 19:20

You're cool like that; posting wiki links and all. But nevertheless, you have presented me with an argument and I intend to shit on yours with mine.

Oooh. See what I did there? First paragraph in and your argument is already irrelevant.

Listen buddy. Wikipedia is very loosely defining socialism. Wikipedia's definitions go different ways - yours and mine. Next time you try to prove a point (which I still couldn't actually find in your reply - which was just a link, in fact), try to use a different source. And since different sources will have their biases, there will be no end to this specific argument of what constitutes socialism and what doesn't. What constitutes socialism these days seems to be a matter opinion; with some opinions benefiting the workers and some even removing the workers from processes of decision making and the like.

listen BUDDY

socialism is wide term - and wikipedia gave explanation from more point of views , thats why words or , and some people say and similar are inserted , because what you bolded is one of the thesis

you gave some brief non-accurate explanation of what socialism is , and im a leninist have in mind

socialism is not direct workers control over the means of production , its rather workers bodies control over means of production, collectives and similar

direct control of means of production is - communism

∞

16th June 2010, 00:35

You don't know what you're talking about. "One mis-representative piece of shit", Ha! A centrally planned economy relies on local initiative combined with strong, centralized planning. No matter what system you're living under, there needs to be an overall plan for economic development As I stated before, workers take an active role in their role place discussing plans and management. Okay that what is SAID it relies on. Unfortunately authoritarian methods would lead to bueracracy. When there is such a division and disregard for a supply-demand system. This type of managment is also very slow. Economically I'll say it again, it's archaic. To put it simply, there is nothing that determine whats to be made better than the consumer and workers themeselves. Let the workers hold thier firm and determine thier own productivity.

"Don't bother. Something tells me you know shit about the Soviet economy, or the socialist Chinese economy."-You haven't provided any historical evidence why these economie are not what I stated nor have you told me why they are prosporous at all. Until then, suck my dick.

I honestly don't think you're mature enough to have an adequate debate with. How about you go into the learning section for a while? Better yet, read a book.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:-lol Right because your theory is fuckin' awesome and has no problems................

∞

16th June 2010, 00:49

"Don't bother. Something tells me you know shit about the Soviet economy, or the socialist Chinese economy."

I would've given you an Anarchist article, probably mine, but that'd be biased to you. Go on wikipedia and look at the economy of the USSR and tell me if I'm wrong in what I say. I can't post links yet, other wise I'd given you an article I wrote myself. If you want it I can PM you, though I might just post it on revleft.

Uppercut

16th June 2010, 01:14

This type of managment is also very slow.

The statistics show otherwise...
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/economics/statistics/ind-out.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1928/sufds/ch05.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1928/sufds/ch10.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1928/sufds/ch17.htm

there is nothing that determine whats to be made better than the consumer and workers themeselves. Let the workers hold thier firm and determine thier own productivity.

You're just ignoring my above posts. The people could contact their local soviet or make suggestions for the improvement of their local conditions. Or they can just self-manage their co-op. I don't know how to make it any clearer to you.

You haven't provided any historical evidence why these economie are not what I stated nor have you told me why they are prosporous at all.

Yes I did. I mentioned that workers carried with them a responsibility in the workplace and are able to discuss the lines of the central plan. This arouses the enthusiasm of the masses, knowing that they themselves have become the masters of their social life. This mentality can take a while to build, however.

And pertaining to China, collective/commune managed industry rose steadily alongside state industry at an average of 15% a years. My source for that is The Battle for China's Past...it's a book, something you're obviously unfamiliar with.

Until then, suck my dick.

Saying that shit only makes you look like even more of a dumbass. You won't be around here too much longer if you don't grow up a bit. And how about you learn how to properly quote?

Right because your theory is fuckin' awesome and has no problems................

Every theory has problems and mishaps. That can be clearly shown throughout the history of philosophy.
But yeah, it is pretty awesome;)

Go on wikipedia and look at the economy of the USSR and tell me if I'm wrong in what I say.

Oh yes, because wikipedia is the all knowing epicenter of economic knowledge. :laugh:

Lulznet

16th June 2010, 01:43

Paris Commune: 1871 (Only actual form of workers controlled communism in the modern society.)
Soviet Union: 1917-91 (Leninism isn't a form of Socialism its a distorted version of Nationalism that instead of relying on simply a nation mixes the idea of a nation and 'workers controlled' thoughts together and in reality instead of being Pro-Worker is instead Anti-Worker and Pro-New Class.
Mongolia: 1924-92 (See the above.)
Republican Spain: 1936-39 (Nearly reached what the Paris Commune had.)
Albania: 1944-91 (Based upon Stalinist tenancies and then on a decayed State-Capitalist thought.)
Yugoslavia: 1945-92 (See the above.)
North Korea: 1948-94 (See the above.)
People's Republic of China: 1949-78 (See the above.)
North Vietnam: 1954-75(Socialist Republic of Vietnam until 1986) (See the above.)
Cuba: 1961-present (Scroll up to the Soviet Union... But to a less violent extent than the Soviet Union was.)
Angola: 1974-92 (See the Above.)
Mozambique: 1975-90 (See the Above.)
Laos: 1975-89 (See the Above.)
Afghanistan: 1978-92 (Soviet satellite state that was created in an attempt to boost Soviet influence in the Middle East. Also... State Capitalist much like the later Soviet Union.)
Nicaragua: 1979-90 (See the above.)
Burkina-Faso: 1983-87 (See the above.)
Zapatista-controlled Chiapas: 1994-present (Somewhat working Socialism but lacks a popular movement among the Mexican people.)
Venezuela: 2006-present (State Capitalist.)
Nepal: 2006-present (Early formations of a Maoist/Stalinist state.)

4 Leaf Clover

16th June 2010, 01:48

*cough *... elitism *cough* liberal *cough*

But the best part "republican spain - almost reached paris comune" - LMAO :D

∞

16th June 2010, 03:20

The statistics show otherwise...

You're just ignoring my above posts. The people could contact their local soviet or make suggestions for the improvement of their local conditions. Or they can just self-manage their co-op. I don't know how to make it any clearer to you.

Yes I did. I mentioned that workers carried with them a responsibility in the workplace and are able to discuss the lines of the central plan. This arouses the enthusiasm of the masses, knowing that they themselves have become the masters of their social life. This mentality can take a while to build, however.

And pertaining to China, collective/commune managed industry rose steadily alongside state industry at an average of 15% a years. My source for that is The Battle for China's Past...it's a book, something you're obviously unfamiliar with.

Saying that shit only makes you look like even more of a dumbass. You won't be around here too much longer if you don't grow up a bit. And how about you learn how to properly quote?

Every theory has problems and mishaps. That can be clearly shown throughout the history of philosophy.
But yeah, it is pretty awesome;)

Oh yes, because wikipedia is the all knowing epicenter of economic knowledge. :laugh:

1. Yet again you fail to realize that the Soviet Union FAILED to reach consumer demands causing stagnation.

2. "Contact their local soviet"--And how long does this process take compared to unstatist production? At this point, why would they even bother going to the trouble contacting on this and that, rather having the consumer demand directly with the firm. Yes self-management would be nice, I fear you guys wouldn't let that happen however. I still feel the pain of the Toltsist and Bakuninist communes which became the exploitee for the state.

3. Enthusiasm requires motivation, and under a statist system where all are being paid the same, we have less of that. And how would you solve this dilemma? Uh-oh, looks like force i.e. Gulag.

4. Yes Mao's Antis campaign was rather good though it's main foundation was based on Soviet aid. But when Mao tried to instate furthermore collectivist principles China suffered drastically. The Great Leap Forward had resulted in the deaths of millions of Chinese. This led to resentment, so then we have the cultural revolution which killed millions more. Thats the historical thesis I present against central planning.

5.Prove wikipedia wrong, wikipedia uses some decent sources. It's not what I recommend, but eh, I was trying to be non-biased

16th June 2010, 07:38

And a class movement can begin in either one country or many at the same time. Historically, it's been one country at a time.
Historically. Who knows what the future holds?

On a local level, they can work. But they are not substantial for consolidating workers control over a large section of the economy. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of co-ops, but state ownership can bring social control of the means of production to a much wider scale.
I merely brought up co-ops for their successful implementation of workers' self-management. Otherwise, they're the same as any other capitalist enterprise.

In present day capitalist economies, yes, bosses and managers are usually oppressive and don't give a shit about the workers. But no matter what the production relations, there needs to be someone who plans. Elected management helps to contradict worker/management conflicts and management also takes part in labor, which helps to restrict bueaurocracy and bourgeoise-right. If the manager becomes bueaurocratic, he or she can be recalled.
Managers are always bureaucratic. They belong to a bureaucracy. A managerial structure which is hierarchical and/or separated from those managed is always bureaucratic. Unless the management is no longer separated from those managed and ceases to be hierarchical, it is still bureaucratic.

And I never said there should be no planning - I just oppose central planning (like would happen in a bureaucratic system) and I support, in it's place, democratic workers' planning and self-management. Management must never be separated from those managed; all workers must manage themselves and help each other - that is final.

This is a utopian statement lacking even the most elementary scientific analysis. Of course, it's difficult to have an analytical debate with someone who automatically considers state ownership to be the ultimate evil. Look at it this way, no matter what system the revolution brings, there will have to be an organization or force that connects the means of production in some matter for economic management. For anarchists, that might be through a giant union. For Communists, like myself, that will be the state. It is the form and content of the state, along with production relations that determine whether the workers and farmers are in control or not.

The state does not operate under a natural order that says no matter who is in government is corrupt. If a socialist/communist party comes to power and draws up a constitution, which states that "the means of production will be owned and controlled by the working class through through their local councils, and represented through the state" that would be a bad thing?
I retract my statement, what I should have said is that all power and final authority should have been given back to the soviets after the war had finished; and direct control and ownership of the means of production to the workers.

As for "representation through the state": lol.

Form and content, comrade, form and content.
Now, I wish I knew what the fuck you meant by that...

Except that it hasn't...It's impossible to change the world's social order over night and abolish the state, at that. Sure, you've had Spanish Catalonia and whatnot, but no long term accomplishments because these experiments can't put up a sufficient defense.

Of course, post-revolution, you and your anarchist buddies can have your communes or whatever so long as it's not located next to a nuclear power plant or anything like that.
In that case, state socialism/capitalism hasn't gotten us anywhere because "it ended in revisionism".

16th June 2010, 07:50

listen BUDDY
You're not my buddy.

socialism is wide term - and wikipedia gave explanation from more point of views , thats why words or , and some people say and similar are inserted , because what you bolded is one of the thesis
You do realise I also bolded public (AKA state) ownership, yeah? That's why I said it shows both our perspectives.

you gave some brief non-accurate explanation of what socialism is , and im a leninist have in mind
It shows.

socialism is not direct workers control over the means of production , its rather workers bodies control over means of production, collectives and similar

direct control of means of production is - communism
Wait... so these "bodies" just disappear in time for communism, according to you? I'm intrigued...

And I thought communism was the global stateless, classless society. But according to you, it's something different. Oh well.

4 Leaf Clover

16th June 2010, 11:07

You're not my buddy.
grow up

You do realise I also bolded public (AKA state) ownership, yeah? That's why I said it shows both our perspectives.
no you said my own source (which is not my source btw) denies me , even if i didnt bring up statement yet... you misconcepted what socialism is

Wait... so these "bodies" just disappear in time for communism, according to you? I'm intrigued...
governing institutions dissapear as their existence becomes obsolete , due to improved efficiency of production and trade globaly

16th June 2010, 11:17

grow up
No.

no you said my own source (which is not my source btw) denies me , even if i didnt bring up statement yet... you misconcepted what socialism is
How is it not your own source? You gave me the link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism), and I used it in a counter-argument (well it's not really a counter-argument as what you gave me wasn't an argument; it was just a link).

governing institutions dissapear as their existence becomes obsolete , due to improved efficiency of production and trade globaly

You want government to disappear?!
How would governmental institutions disappear as a result of an increase in production efficiency and trade?

Sir Comradical

16th June 2010, 12:21

Simple question with a simple answer. Communism is a STATELESS classless society... obviously these tyrannys had states.

Utopian drivel. You can't just expect a potentially revolutionary situation to spontaneously develop into the fantastic ideal you have floating around in your mind. Let's be materialists here. Even if a genuine revolution, led by a sincere democratic body of workers eventuated in some part of the world, this region would have to become a state. Why? Because the simple fact is that this region will be surrounded by capitalist states, so the retention of basic statist features will be necessary, features such as a national currency for trade (autarky is just not possible, no country can produce absolutely everything) and a military to defend the revolution from the inevitable reaction that so often comes.

Secondly, Barry Lyndon didn't even use 'communist' or 'communism' in his original post. Obviously the stateless/classless communist society is the ultimate aim, but the question was asking whether those regimes were socialist or not. Socialism as I understand still retains a state.

robbo203

16th June 2010, 12:47

Utopian drivel. You can't just expect a potentially revolutionary situation to spontaneously develop into the fantastic ideal you have floating around in your mind. Let's be materialists here. Even if a genuine revolution, led by a sincere democratic body of workers eventuated in some part of the world, this region would have to become a state. Why? Because the simple fact is that this region will be surrounded by capitalist states, so the retention of basic statist features will be necessary, features such as a national currency for trade (autarky is just not possible, no country can produce absolutely everything) and a military to defend the revolution from the inevitable reaction that so often comes.

Secondly, Barry Lyndon didn't even use 'communist' or 'communism' in his original post. Obviously the stateless/classless communist society is the ultimate aim, but the question was asking whether those regimes were socialist or not. Socialism as I understand still retains a state.

Being materialist, one might well ask then how you suppose a genuine revolution could break out in one part of the world, without other parts of the world being likewise steeped into a communist cosnsciousness and therefore just a small step behind wherever the revolution first puts in an appearance? In short, the residual capitalist states will have no room for manouvre, and certainly neither will or the ability to crush some external communist revolution, given the massive constraints exercised by a thoroughly communist-influenced "internal" public opinion.

The idea that socialism retains a state is no part of the Marxian tradition which regards socialism and communism as merely interchangeable terms.

Sir Comradical

16th June 2010, 12:55

Being materialist, one might well ask then how you suppose a genuine revolution could break out in one part of the world, without other parts of the world being likewise steeped into a communist cosnsciousness and therefore just a small step behind wherever the revolution first puts in an appearance? In short, the residual capitalist states will have no room for manouvre, and certainly neither will or the ability to crush some external communist revolution, given the massive constraints exercised by a thoroughly communist-influenced "internal" public opinion.

The idea that socialism retains a state is no part of the Marxian tradition which regards socialism and communism as merely interchangeable terms.

Well yes, hence the need for world revolution. I never denied that.

I've heard this thing about communism and socialism being interchangeable terms, but it's really down to definition. For the purpose of this thread, I'm going by what I understand the OP meant by socialism.

Fietsketting

16th June 2010, 17:55

*cough *... elitism *cough* liberal *cough*

But the best part "republican spain - almost reached paris comune" - LMAO :D

The anarchists we're well on there way, weren't they?

Lulznet

16th June 2010, 19:19

The anarchists we're well on there way, weren't they?
They were well on their way but they were lacking in certain places.

In my personal opinion the Paris Commune had achieved something closer to actual Communism than the Spanish Republicans had. :lol:

∞

17th June 2010, 03:49

Utopian drivel. You can't just expect a potentially revolutionary situation to spontaneously develop into the fantastic ideal you have floating around in your mind. Let's be materialists here. Even if a genuine revolution, led by a sincere democratic body of workers eventuated in some part of the world, this region would have to become a state. Why? Because the simple fact is that this region will be surrounded by capitalist states, so the retention of basic statist features will be necessary, features such as a national currency for trade (autarky is just not possible, no country can produce absolutely everything) and a military to defend the revolution from the inevitable reaction that so often comes.

Secondly, Barry Lyndon didn't even use 'communist' or 'communism' in his original post. Obviously the stateless/classless communist society is the ultimate aim, but the question was asking whether those regimes were socialist or not. Socialism as I understand still retains a state.

It originally said "communism/Socialism"

They are one form of socialism, if you want to debate tyranny with me then fine.

Autakry isn't possible, thats why we need the revolutionary movement of many places. But we can only trade with other nations without exploiting them. Therefore we will only participate trade with countries willing to give us supply for the accumulated capital of the worker's firm.

And there shouldn't be any reason to be arguing with me if you don't consider these countries communist either.

Nor should you be arguing whether they are socialist or not because they are.

4 Leaf Clover

17th June 2010, 17:59

They were well on their way but they were lacking in certain places.

In my personal opinion the Paris Commune had achieved something closer to actual Communism than the Spanish Republicans had. :lol:

what do small formations of anarchist in Spain during civil war have to do with Republican Spain and its government

18th June 2010, 07:29

what do small formations of anarchist in Spain during civil war have to do with Republican Spain and its government
I think the OP and others in this thread have confused the Spanish Anarchists with the Spanish Republicans.

∞

21st June 2010, 06:49

Lol at the subcommandante quote

Klaatu

21st June 2010, 18:49

We all can debate of what socialism and communism ARE, but they will not come about on their own in the U.S., until we win the hearts and minds of the average person. I for one, demand that socialist and communist ideals begin to be taught in the public school system (K-12) as being honorable and viable alternatives to capitalism. We have a right to be heard. Under the U.S. First Amendment, I feel that the conscious lack of favorable socialism/communism studies from the western classroom amounts to (shall I say) a crime of omission.

This has got to change.

Pavlov's House Party

27th June 2010, 21:57

I for one, demand that socialist and communist ideals begin to be taught in the public school system (K-12) as being honorable and viable alternatives to capitalism. We have a right to be heard. Under the U.S. First Amendment, I feel that the conscious lack of favorable socialism/communism studies from the western classroom amounts to (shall I say) a crime of omission.

This has got to change.

lol

you really think that the education system of a capitalist country, will allow the teaching of a program aimed at its destruction? maybe the bourgeoisie will just give in and let us set up socialism too, then:rolleyes:

∞

30th June 2010, 01:58

Without a strong vanguard party to provide leadership you will always have
disorganization,instability and eventually chaos.
I'm not saying that the USSR in particular didn't make mistakes. We all want
power in the hands of the workers, But if that power is not ensured by a state
and a visionary leadership you will only be playing into the hands of the agents
and saboteurs and the capitalists will be up and running again in no time.

Lol. that'd be great if it where true, way to have positive outlook on humanity:glare:

RedLaw

30th June 2010, 08:59

Lol. that'd be great if it where true, way to have positive outlook on humanity:glare:

No less positive than your belief that leadership has to always be corrupt or
place self-interest ahead of those of the people.

No faith in curbing that old human nature thing either,eh?

∞

30th June 2010, 17:41

No less positive than your belief that leadership has to always be corrupt or
place self-interest ahead of those of the people.

No faith in curbing that old human nature thing either,eh?

So instead of people controlling themselves you should have them disciplined under a party (made UP of people)? The people are the interest, at least for us Anarchists, we don't take shit from bureaucrats.

People's War

30th June 2010, 21:44

None of these countries are communist in the true sense - a stateless society where 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is implemented as economic policy. But I know this isn't what you mean really, so I will use communist in the sense applied to it normally.

All three were communist in my opinion. However, only Cuba is still communist as far as I can see, and even there, it seems to be moving towards capitalism gradually.

The USSR was communist from 1917 to 1921 and again from 1928-c.1953-1957. The first time it was abandoned due to the NEP and the second time was around the time after Stalin died and the bureaucracy began to creep in, effectively making the USSR into a glorified socialist state.

China was communist from 1949-1978. Mao was obviously communist, but after his death, Guofeng took over. He continued the communist policies (though taking a more Soviet style line), but ultimately, Xiaoping unfortunately forced through market reforms which ended communism in China and turned it into the social imperialist fascist state it is today.

Die Rote Fahne

1st July 2010, 05:57

None of them have been communist. Dear god. None have them have achieved socialism.

They are all failed revolutions.

1st July 2010, 10:28

No less positive than your belief that leadership has to always be corrupt or
place self-interest ahead of those of the people.
Oh no. Rulers aren't politically corrupt by default, the system allows it to happen. Rulers are well within their rights to be dickheads.

No faith in curbing that old human nature thing either,eh?
This is not a human nature thing like greed (which states ALL humans are inherently and unstoppably greedy); power corrupts someone (ethically or morally, not necessarily politically) but that is only because a few have it.

None of these countries are communist in the true sense - a stateless society where 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is implemented as economic policy. But I know this isn't what you mean really, so I will use communist in the sense applied to it normally.

All three were communist in my opinion. However, only Cuba is still communist as far as I can see, and even there, it seems to be moving towards capitalism gradually.

The USSR was communist from 1917 to 1921 and again from 1928-c.1953-1957. The first time it was abandoned due to the NEP and the second time was around the time after Stalin died and the bureaucracy began to creep in, effectively making the USSR into a glorified socialist state.

China was communist from 1949-1978. Mao was obviously communist, but after his death, Guofeng took over. He continued the communist policies (though taking a more Soviet style line), but ultimately, Xiaoping unfortunately forced through market reforms which ended communism in China and turned it into the social imperialist fascist state it is today.
Hypocrite much? If not a true sense, then what? A false sense?