Venezuela and "XXI century socialism" - a marxist-leninist perspective

[bie]

Highly recommended text the marxist-leninist perspective on utopian and
voluntaristic concepts of the future society, spread by social-democrats under the label of socialism and progress.

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

On the opportunist theory of “21st century socialism”

by Dimitris Karagiannis

The positive developments that have taken place during the last years
in several Latin American countries (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua,
Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, recently in El
Salvador, Honduras), to a different extent and depth in each country, have
created important expectations as well as various confusions and illusions
throughout the world.

The new situation is mainly defined by opposition to US imperialism -this
however leads to the identification of the concept of imperialism with the US,
and its characterisation as “empire”. The issue of relations of dependence
that each country faces in the framework of interdependence within the world
imperialist system is also approached in an incorrect, one-sided way. The lack
of a class approach, the necessity for class struggle and confrontation with the
interests of capital are obvious. At the same time, due to the erroneous analysis of the
contemporary world and the prevalence of opportunist influences, the bourgeois class
is wrongly differentiated as a national one and one subjected to foreign influence

Thus, sections of the bourgeoisie, who are owners of means of production
and control the economy, often participate in fronts that manage to win the
elections without aiming to overthrow capitalism but to better promote their
interests and claim a bigger slice from the pie of the conflict with capital, in
particular the US one. This actually occurs in all countries from Brazil, Argen-
tina and Chile that claim to play a leading role in the region, to El Salvador,
Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela, where this process is more advanced. This
intention of the bourgeoisie in each country, in relation with the level of capi-
talist development, is in line with the spontaneous anti-imperialism and anti-
Americanism that exists among the popular strata. It constitutes a response to
the cruel anti-people’s policies implemented the previous decade throughout the
continent by political forces that had good relations with US monopolies.

At the same time, through the intense promotion of the platform for “21st century Socialism”,
particularly in Venezuela and Bolivia, a blurred picture of the socialist perspective is created.

The new theory is ...old

Let’s examine this “new theory” that is presented as “21st century Socialism” which,
by no accident, has been adopted by various political forces compromised with the system,
reformists and opportunists, such as the European Left Party.

The so-called theory of the “21st century Socialism” was promoted in 1996
by the German sociologist Hans Dietrich Stefan who has lived and taught in
Mexico since 1977 and has served as advisor to the president of Venezuela
Hugo Chavez.

This theory was developed after the overthrow in the socialist countries. It
is based on the arbitrary assumption that “capitalism and real socialism have
bred a huge deficit of democracy and failed to solve urgent problems of hu-
manity such as poverty, hunger, exploitation, economic oppression, sexism,
racism, the destruction of natural resources and the lack of a truly participa-
tory democracy”.

Dietrich and his theory annihilate the contribution of socialism in the 20th
century, lumping together the exploitative system and the socialist construction
that offered great achievements to humanity and paved the way for a society without
exploitation of man by man. He says that “the social programme of the bourgeoisie
and of the historic proletariat” have failed and underlines that “it’s time to overcome
the culture of the ruling class towards a post-capitalist global society, a generalised
liberal democracy”. This fabrication is presented as the “new socialism of the 21st century”.
Dietrich claims that it will be based on “the mixed economy, on the diverse forms
of ownership (social, cooperative and private)” which, supposedly, will give priority to
social ownership and “will be based on the Marxian labour theory of value while the values
produced will be distributed democratically to those who produce them, in contrast with the
principles of the market economy”.

It is evident that this theory is utopian and arbitrary due to the fact that in a society
where private ownership of the means of production for profit exists, that is a capitalist
enterprise, there cannot be social priorities. Dietrich, in order to make his contrived notion
even more persuasive, claims that private capital will be forced by the prevailing social state
production to be at the service of development in favour of the people that “the public sector
will prevail over the private”. He also goes beyond the issue of central planning as an
essential element in socialist construction saying that it will be solved by the capabilities
of new technology nowadays. It comprises a “mixture” of opportunist and utopian ideas
that cannot be implemented because mixed socialism or socialism
with a market cannot exist. However, it is a theory as old as the first revisionists of Marxism.
It actually wants to give a “left” cover to a social-democratic type of management of capitalism.

This theory, however, exerts a broad influence on the popular strata with little political
experience in countries of Latin America and elsewhere. It is also promoted the view that
broad political alliances can be developed without the need of ideological homogeneity,
as if policy and ideology can be separated by great walls. A key issue in order to understand
that this theory is actually a variant of social-democratic management of capitalism is the
criterion of ownership of the means of production, the analysis from the class point of view
of who is served by this “new theory”. The opportunist position presented as “socialism of the 21st century”
sidesteps the fundamental issue that the interests of the workers, of the popular strata, are opposed
to those of the bourgeoisie, of the capitalists and cannot be identified in the name of a
“participatory and pluralistic democracy”; it neglects the fact that the class struggle is irreconcilable.

The Bolivarian process

In this spirit we must examine the so-called Bolivarian process in Venezuela, the country
that since 1998 has paved the way for changes in favour of the poor popular strata through the
utilisation of important state revenue that is mainly derived from oil. Social programmes that
contributed to combat illiteracy, to provide health services to the popular strata, to strengthen
the cooperatives, to distribute land to landless peasants, to improve nutrition through state
stores with low prices overcoming the speculation of the private food sector, to create
lending opportunities and to subsidize other sectors such as culture and sports were based on
this revenue. In these programs the mutual cooperation established with socialist Cuba since
the very first moment is of significant importance.

However, this so-called “anti-imperialist process for national liberation”
does not lead to a confrontation with the bourgeois class that still holds
economic power. The socialism that the president of Venezuela refers to
and has been adopted by the Unified Socialist Party -a multi-class, multi-
tendency party organised throughout the country- is far from scientific
socialism. In his statements, Hugo Chavez revives positions against the
dictatorship of the proletariat and in favour of a supposedly “democratic
socialism”.

The essence of these positions results from influences from bourgeois,
social-democrat approaches to socialism in the 20th century. Even the USSR
and the socialist countries we have known in the 20th century are character-
ized as totalitarian and bureaucratic regimes, although their internationalist
contribution to the struggle against imperialism, to Cuba for example, or the
support of popular movements cannot be ignored.

The petit-bourgeoisie and the preservation of capitalism

In this direction is the proposal for the establishment of the so-called “5th
Socialist International” currently promoted by President Chavez and his
party as a necessary step for the perspective of “21st century socialism”. This proposal is
characterised by a great deal of confusion. It involves a generalisation with regards to
anti-imperialism that encompasses the necessary political-state alliances in order to
maintain the current of change in the American continent by promoting unrealistic views
that do not go beyond the management of capitalism or of the mutual cooperation of states
contrary to what is defined as “US empire”, while it remains within the framework of
the dominant system.

Such a collaboration is also the progressive form of alliance based on
solidarity, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) in which the fol-
lowing countries participate: Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador,
the small countries of the Caribbean- Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica and
Saint Vincent, the Grenadines, Honduras with the previous (now ousted)
president Manuel Zelaya who had signed a joining agreement. However,
the participation of socialist Cuba does not change the character of this in-
terstate alliance between capitalist countries. It is precisely for the fact that
it does not constitute an alliance of socialist countries that it cannot be con-
sidered as a real counterweight to imperialism; even more so with regards
to other unions such as the Union of Nations of South America UNASUR
(in which Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador,
Paraguay, Peru, Surinam, Uruguay, and Guiana participate) where various
bourgeois state interests come in conflict. At the same time, major powers in
Latin America, such as Brazil, participate in collaborations at an international
level such as BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) and develop relations with
Russia, Iran and China.

Thus, it is clear that diplomatic relations and interstate cooperation cannot
be confused with platforms for a socialist perspective. This perception domi-
nates in the so-called “Commitment of Caracas” that was proposed by the
Unified Socialist Party of Venezuela in the recent party meeting in Caracas
and it also runs through the proposal of Chavez for the “5th International”.
Socialism as immature communism is the society in which the working
class and its allies hold the power (its scientific definition is the dictatorship
of the proletariat),a prerequisite for the abolition of capitalist ownership of
the means of production and for their socialisation. The struggle for socialism
cannot be realised without the existence and action of the revolutionary party
-as an independent organization; it is the party of the working class,
the Communist Party that leads this struggle and at the same time creates
socio-political alliances, for the confrontation with imperialism and the monopolies.

History has shown that this struggle will be difficult as imperialism fights
“tooth and nail” against any attempt of revolutionary overthrow of the unjust
exploitative system. From this point of view, positions that appear in the text
of the “Commitment of Caracas” condemning violence in general, as well as
the violence that the militant revolutionary forces assert, actually confirm the
social-democrat content of this entire effort that does not recognise the right
of the people to decide on the form of struggle they will embrace.

The discussion developed around ‘the new socialism’ highlights the neces-
sity of intensification of the ideological-political struggle, the strengthening of
Communist Parties and the creation of the communist pole of Marxist-Leninist
parties that will decisively defend the principles of class struggle, the neces-
sity of socialist revolution, the overthrow of capitalism and the construction
of socialism based on the political power of the working class, the socialisation
of the means of production, central planning and workers’ control.

It is necessary to confront on this basis any illusions, confusion and even
more so, any petit-bourgeois ideas presented as “21st century socialism” that
are based on the maintenance of private ownership of the means of produc-
tion, the denunciation of the positive contribution of the USSR and generally
of the socialism we have known in the 20th century, as well as the rejection
of the laws of socialist revolution and construction, the socialisation of
the basic means of production, central planning of the economy, workers and people’s control.

Source (http://mltoday.com/en/subject-areas/marxist-theory/current-issues-of-the-communist-movement-896.html)

[Delenda Carthago]

this section is about ONGOING STRUGGLES.Meaning,reporting news,letters etc.

Analyses,reporting problems like world hunger etc should move to "politics" section.

[RED DAVE]

Beyond the fact that the OP author does not understand that the USSR, etc., and Cuba are not socialist, there is much to recommend this analysis.

RED DAVE

[Barry Lyndon]

Beyond the fact that the OP author does not understand that the USSR, etc., and Cuba are not socialist, there is much to recommend this analysis.

RED DAVE

Awwww isn't this touching- foaming at the mouth Stalinists and doctrinaire Trotskyists come together to attack the Bolivarian revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Except for the part that insults *Heinz* Dietrich, the article has some good criticisms.

[bie]

Awwww isn't this touching- foaming at the mouth Stalinists and doctrinaire Trotskyists come together to attack the Bolivarian revolution.
Oh, a very deep answer, not sectarian at all. Should I understand that you represent reformist, social-democratic liberalism, along the the unconditional support to all the lies that have been invented against SU? And that you are using term "Stalinism" to discredit your opponent, implicitly referring and supporting the most absurd and untruthful anticommunism?

Except for the part that insults *Heinz* Dietrich, the article has some good criticisms
Do you think that Dietrich goes beyond social-democracy than? How can it be?

Beyond the fact that the OP author does not understand that the USSR, etc., and Cuba are not socialist
I am sure that the author has 100 times bigger knowledge about USSR and Cuba than us, and the point is that non-scientific approach to the XX century socialism yields revisionist theories of "XXI century socialism" that is nothing but different management of capitalism i.e. influence of bourgeoisie. The condition for socialism is the social ownership of means of production and centrally managed economy. This is the condition that makes systems different.

[pranabjyoti]

For XXI century socialism, what is a MUST is XXI century technologies. What about that?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Do you think that Dietrich goes beyond social-democracy than? How can it be?

He collaborated with Paul Cockshott of this very board to come up with programmatic Transitions to 21st Century Socialism in Venezuela and the European Union:

http://www.politik-und-kultur.de/de/nhp/puk-downloads/socialism-xxi-english/32-transition-to-21st-century-socialism-in-the-european-union.html

[Paul Cockshott]

It is a very shallow treatment of Dieterich's work. Those on the list who can read either Spanish or German would be advised to read some of Dieterich in the original, and observe how close his proposals are to those of Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Programme.
Dieterich credits the achievement of hithertoo existing socialist countries particularly Cuba and the GDR, and in my opinion is rather too keen on the Chinese CP tradition. But Dieterich recognises the obvious - that the Soviet model ran into a terminal crisis and that something different is needed.
The author of the article seems to think that it is enough to repeat old verities as if 1989 never happened.

[FSL]

The author of the article seems to think that it is enough to repeat old verities as if 1989 never happened.

The author of the article understands why did 1989 happen.
It wasn't a result of "the Soviet model" as no such thing existed for the 70 years of the USSR. In fact, there were lots of "soviet models".



Dieterich credits the achievement of hithertoo existing socialist countries particularly Cuba and the GDR


And not only of these socialist countries but also of the socialist UK under Labour. Because no such things like bourgeois or workers' states exist, nor is it impossible to use the state machinery of the previous rulling class for your own purpose. You can build capitalism from the palace and socialism through parliament. On Marx's footsteps indeed. (Not to mention his love of "blocs". The EU is where we can expect a revolution. Yes, in that thing that would either be reactionary or impossible.)


Something that just came in.



It is another thing, according to this German who lives in Mexico and who has a huge influence on the Chávez way of thinking, the issue of Havana’s new flexibility with the political prisoners. “The changes in the political prisoner policy is in response to a desire for closer ties with Washington and Brussels,” he says, going on to emphasize that the release is “a severe tactical defeat of the Revolution,” whereby the Cuban state “for the first time in 50 years was incapable of maintaining the strategic initiative over the ‘Delinquents Cartel’ formed by the European Union, the Vatican and the United States.”
Dieterich expands on the issue and states: “The loss of the strategic initiative is noticeable in the fact that the Communist Party of Cuba didn’t release the prisoners by its own free will, but due to external pressure and the Catholic Church.” And so “the global and domestic public credit for this measure is attributed to the Vatican which appears as the agent of progressive change, and not the Communist Party, which is stuck with the appearance of a static body that must be pushed to act.”
As to the future, Dietrich believes that control of the situation on the island can be regained through two initiatives: “a Marshall plan to overcome the economic emergency, coupled with the audacious policy demonstrated by Lenin in The Great Initiative. In his view, a period of economic calm is required and around US$10 billion in an emergency fund, an amount that could be provided by “China, Russia andLatin American countries.”
As to the Lenin initiative that he advocates, it should be proposed at the Sixth Communist Party Congress in 2011, with “structural reforms in the relations of production — the country’s fundamental economic problem — and in the political superstructure (participation), so as to exit the crisis and escape the attacking cartel,” he says.
He ends on a sceptic note, asking himself whether the Leninist faction in the Cuban Communist Party “can act with the speed and audacity necessary for survival.
Coming from Heinz Dieterich, the ideologist of 21st Century socialism, this query, besides being categorical, is a guilty plea.


http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/39509

I'm wondering how he'd comment on the "not starting WW3" thing that happened back in the 60s, something that also wasn't a result of Cuba's free will. Another severe tactical defeat. Or the Molotov-Ribentrop pact for that matter. Because under no circumstances could it happen that Cuba wants the embargo to end or european sanctions to be withdrawn and in no way is exiling people a small price to pay for that.

It would be nice if he explained the country's "economic emergency" because what I see is one of the few (maybe the only one?) latin america countries to not dip in recession, despite the whole capitalist world crumbling down. The accumulated state debt remains very low, the state deficit is small, the external sector had a surplus in 2009. I'd hardly say that Cuba is the country with the fundamental problems. Dragged down by everyone else? Yes, that I can believe.


In any case, a social democrat is a social democrat, regardless of how he may try to present himself. And that is a good enough reason to oppose him and his pioneering ideas.

[pranabjyoti]

It is a very shallow treatment of Dieterich's work. Those on the list who can read either Spanish or German would be advised to read some of Dieterich in the original, and observe how close his proposals are to those of Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Programme.
Dieterich credits the achievement of hithertoo existing socialist countries particularly Cuba and the GDR, and in my opinion is rather too keen on the Chinese CP tradition. But Dieterich recognises the obvious - that the Soviet model ran into a terminal crisis and that something different is needed.
The author of the article seems to think that it is enough to repeat old verities as if 1989 never happened.
The basic question is why 1989 happened. Is it due to inherent flaws of the Soviet model or something else? In my opinion, for a long time, USSR has to take and suffer attacks from imperialist forces all over the world alone. For a long time, it hasn't strong allies that can stand beside it. Basically, the Nazi attack during WWII had done most harm and if we look at the chronology of events, we can observe rise of revisionism after that. If the Russian model is inherently flawed, then it would be just impossible for USSR to coup up with the Nazi attack.
Basically, the point on which we all have to concentrate that WHETHER DIETERICH'S IDEA IS CHALLENGING THE BASIC CONCEPT OF "DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT" OR NOT. If yes, then it's certainly revisionist. From the article above and all the posts, none have so far clearly tell the reasons WHY THE RUSSIAN MODEL "FAILED". Without proper understanding of the "failure", if we just reject the "Russian model" because it has been "failed", certainly we will end up in another failure that will lead to consequences far exceeding the 1989.

[Paul Cockshott]

The basic question is why 1989 happened. Is it due to inherent flaws of the Soviet model or something else?

Basically, the point on which we all have to concentrate that WHETHER DIETERICH'S IDEA IS CHALLENGING THE BASIC CONCEPT OF "DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT" OR NOT. If yes, then it's certainly revisionist. From the article above and all the posts, none have so far clearly tell the reasons WHY THE RUSSIAN MODEL "FAILED". Without proper understanding of the "failure", if we just reject the "Russian model" because it has been "failed", certainly we will end up in another failure that will lead to consequences far exceeding the 1989.

I suggest you look at the appendix A of http://21stcenturysocialism.blogspot.com/2007/09/venezuela-and-new-socialism.html
which is a report I wrote after giving a seminar in Venezuela along with Heinz.
The appendix specifically addresses your question above.

[pranabjyoti]

I suggest you look at the appendix A of http://21stcenturysocialism.blogspot.com/2007/09/venezuela-and-new-socialism.html
which is a report I wrote after giving a seminar in Venezuela along with Heinz.
The appendix specifically addresses your question above.
In your analysis, the reason of rising of Khrushchev and the slow transition of the Soviet economy is absent in your writings. You have described the economic and general situation of Russia during the Gorby-Yeltsin regime. But, I want to point the factors for which men like Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin can come into power. Actually, a lot of progress had been achieved during Stalin, in fact due to enormous misconducts and capitalist reforms of Khrushchev and its continuation to Gorby, USSR takes that much time to collapse.

[Paul Cockshott]

Explaining why Kruschev rose?
Why is that a problem, he had already 'risen' as a CP organiser during the 1930s.

[Paul Cockshott]

Explaining why Kruschev rose?
Why is that a problem, he had already 'risen' as a CP organiser during the 1930s.

[pranabjyoti]

Explaining why Kruschev rose?
Why is that a problem, he had already 'risen' as a CP organiser during the 1930s.
In my opinion, he rose due to enormous loss in WWII. Actually, Malenkov was the proper choice. But, due to the losses of old and experienced party members and as huge number of new members were recruited from soldiers, which is mainly a petty-bourgeoisie class, Khrushchev got his support and become the chief of party. If there was sufficient support and assistance from the oppressed people worldwide, WWII will cost much less to USSR and Malenkov would be in power and continue the policies of Stalin. But, oppressed people of the world, most people of Asia, Africa, Latin America were in deep sleep and actually of no use for USSR. It has to take the whole attacks from imperialism from 1917 to 1945 alone and this causes the loss of old, veteran and experienced party members which ultimately helped Khrushchev to rise to power.

[Paul Cockshott]

In my opinion, he rose due to enormous loss in WWII. Actually, Malenkov was the proper choice. But, due to the losses of old and experienced party members and as huge number of new members were recruited from soldiers, which is mainly a petty-bourgeoisie class, Khrushchev got his support and become the chief of party. If there was sufficient support and assistance from the oppressed people worldwide, WWII will cost much less to USSR and Malenkov would be in power and continue the policies of Stalin. But, oppressed people of the world, most people of Asia, Africa, Latin America were in deep sleep and actually of no use for USSR. It has to take the whole attacks from imperialism from 1917 to 1945 alone and this causes the loss of old, veteran and experienced party members which ultimately helped Khrushchev to rise to power.

That is an interesting take on it, I dont know much about Malenkov.

[pranabjyoti]

Actually, the fall of USSR is much more related to world condition during first and second half of the 20th century. In my opinion, it's the incapability of workers and oppressed people of the world, like you and me, to stand beside USSR and help it during its dire needs. May be there were inherent weaknesses, but that was inevitable. Without those faults and weaknesses, we wouldn't be here today. And it will be greatest fault on our behalf to just neglect the fight of the working class of USSR.

[Paul Cockshott]

Actually, the fall of USSR is much more related to world condition during first and second half of the 20th century. In my opinion, it's the incapability of workers and oppressed people of the world, like you and me, to stand beside USSR and help it during its dire needs. May be there were inherent weaknesses, but that was inevitable. Without those faults and weaknesses, we wouldn't be here today. And it will be greatest fault on our behalf to just neglect the fight of the working class of USSR.
That is possible, but I plead not guilty.
Allin and I wrote TNS to offer an alternative to socialists there during the Gorbachov period, and Allin went to the USSR then and tried to get it published before the USSR fell so as to directly intervene in the debate, and I went to Hungary to see if I could get it published there, but the supposedly Marxist writers we met in those countries were not interested in publishing a book defending planned economy.

[el_chavista]

You may read Alan Woods' "anti-Dieterich" at http://www.marxist.com/reformism-or-revolution.htm

In Venezuela people associate the "21st century socialism" with Dieterich because of his book by the same name from 1996. I think Cockshott and Lebowitz are ideologically much more representatives of this tendency than Dieterich.

Just think about Dieterich's proposal to Chávez for PDVSA (Venezuelan oil co.) having a double accounting based on market prices and on "value of time incomes". And so with double marking goods (a price and a time-incomes value), as a "socialist" demand.

I think that the famous "21st century socialism" is a kind of reductionism of the M-L theory so to avoid the failures in the 20st century socialism.

[Das war einmal]

It would be very helpful to provide a link, or at least mention the author and the source of the article. Good article nonetheless.

[bie]

The author is Dimitris Karagiannis (i am sure i have mentioned that) and articles is from the collection of texts published by KKE "Current Issues in The Communist Movement. (http://mltoday.com/en/subject-areas/marxist-theory/current-issues-of-the-communist-movement-896.html)"

[pranabjyoti]

You may read Alan Woods' "anti-Dieterich" at http://www.marxist.com/reformism-or-revolution.htm

In Venezuela people associate the "21st century socialism" with Dieterich because of his book by the same name from 1996. I think Cockshott and Lebowitz are ideologically much more representatives of this tendency than Dieterich.

Just think about Dieterich's proposal to Chávez for PDVSA (Venezuelan oil co.) having a double accounting based on market prices and on "value of time incomes". And so with double marking goods (a price and a time-incomes value), as a "socialist" demand.

I think that the famous "21st century socialism" is a kind of reductionism of the M-L theory so to avoid the failures in the 20st century socialism.
Kindly read my points about the FAILURE of socialism, specially USSR during the 20th century. It's in a post above. At least I don't support any kind of
"reductionism" that will push us away from DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT to some kind of petty-bourgeoisie utopia.

[Paul Cockshott]

The basic question is why 1989 happened. Is it due to inherent flaws of the Soviet model or something else?
Basically, the point on which we all have to concentrate that WHETHER DIETERICH'S IDEA IS CHALLENGING THE BASIC CONCEPT OF "DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT" OR NOT. If yes, then it's certainly revisionist. From the article above and all the posts, none have so far clearly tell the reasons WHY THE RUSSIAN MODEL "FAILED". Without proper understanding of the "failure", if we just reject the "Russian model" because it has been "failed", certainly we will end up in another failure that will lead to consequences far exceeding the 1989.

You might look at my
Leadership Concepts and Democrachttp://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/leadershipconcepts.pdfy* A draft book chapter to be translated into Spanish for a book being edited by Dieterich. It deals with the history of ideas of leadership in the socialist movement from the critical standpoint of participatory democracy. The ideas are mine but they influence him.

[pranabjyoti]

You might look at my
Leadership Concepts and Democrachttp://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/leadershipconcepts.pdf (http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/leadershipconcepts.pdf)y* A draft book chapter to be translated into Spanish for a book being edited by Dieterich. It deals with the history of ideas of leadership in the socialist movement from the critical standpoint of participatory democracy. The ideas are mine but they influence him.
I have gone through your writings and sorry to say, in your writings, you have actually attacked the concept of "Dictatorship of Proletariat" and advocated petty-bourgeoisie liberalism in the name of "participatory democracy". In whole of your writings, there is very very little mention of class struggle Do you admit the existence class struggle between proletariat and petty-bourgeoisie? If yes, then kindly tell me how can you defy them. At present, you and Herr Dietrich is in such a position to just ignore my words, but I clearly want to tell that IF WHAT IS WRITTEN IN YOUR ESSAY IS THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE OF VENEZUELA, I MYSELF WANT TO STAY AWAY FROM THE 21ST CENTURY SOCIALISM.
If you want to upto what level bureaucracy can go, kindly visit DEMOCRATIC INDIA, where "participatory democracy" is in full swing for more than sixty years and try to learn their behavior in a little depth. I know them well, so when I heard or read about the "tyrant bureaucracy" of "communist regimes", I just laugh on the ignorance of those people. And I also want to inform you that those Indians or citizens of other third world countries (not from "dictatorial" countries of course), who ever wanted to have a visa to visit any DEMOCRATIC first world country, learned what "bureaucracy" is from the behavior of the officers of the embassy.
In my opinion, there would be no 1989 if there was no WWII. Actually Herr Hitler helped the imperialists by doing great level of harm to USSR while himself taken the charge of the atrocities. During WWII, progress effort of USSR has been greatly damaged and as USSR had to fight Nazi Germany alone, national chauvinistic attitude grasps it and revisionists like Khrushchev takes power. IF THERE WAS NO WWII, THERE WAS NO 1989. Then you may tell that why China had turned into capitalist, then I will ask you that why Mao himself declared China as "New Democracy", not even socialist. Mao himself knows well that petty-bourgeoisie classes are the main force behind the Chinese revolution and China is backward semi-feudal country. Even being capitalist is progress for it. On an interview with Edgar Snow, he himself admitted clearly that "every peasant want to be a capitalist". Many petty-bourgeoisie "critics(!)" of Stalin and Mao just ignored that fact that without revolution, both Russia and China will be just INDIA. India has long history of so-called "participatory democracy", then why so much feudal and semi-feudal mentality still in strength here?
In your essay, you have marked Stalin and Mao as "tyrant", something goes well with the vision of the imperialist historian and politicians. And so far, I don't know anything about the programmes that Venezuelan leadership has taken and/or want to take regarding progress of science and technology. Without proper progress in science and technology, 21st century socialism would probably end up in worst disaster than 1989.

[Paul Cockshott]

I would say neither India or Venezuela are democracies. They bost rest their constitutions on the principle of elections which are an aritocratic rather than democratic principle. If India was a democracy with parliament chosen by llot, then you would have worker peasant ruleot

[Kotze]

I have gone through [Cockshott's] writings and sorry to say, in your writings, you have actually attacked the concept of "Dictatorship of Proletariat" and advocated petty-bourgeoisie liberalism in the name of "participatory democracy".Cockshott advocates selection by lot. Selection by lot in a society with a majority of proles implies that the majority of the assembly will be proles. A vanguard party that informs the public and stands for elections should only be a transient thing. There is a huge risk that psychopathic people rise in such an organization and make it into a permanent parasitic fixture.
Herr Dietrich (...) Herr HitlerI see what you did there. I'm not a fan of Heinz Dieterich, but that was uncalled-for.
And so far, I don't know anything about the programmes that Venezuelan leadership has taken and/or want to take regarding progress of science and technology.The government is improving internet penetration. My source is the, ahem, government newspaper that also has an English edition (headed by Eva Golinger, who is a bit of a conspiracy nut): http://www.correodelorinoco.gob.ve/english-edition

Look at the article in issue No. 4 (2010, March 26) with the title "Internet Revolution".
In that context, president Chavez inaugurated twenty-four Infocenters last Sunday during his program, Alo Presidente, bringing the total to 668 nationwide. He also approved more than $10 million USD for the creation of 200 more of these community-based free cybercenters to be built during 2010. Infocenters are a project of the Ministry of Science and Technology, and are government-sponsored and funded computer centers built in communities throughout the nation that provide free Internet and technological access and services to all Venezuelans. Twenty-seven mobile Infocenters were also launched this week, which will travel across the nation to remote areas in the Amazon, Andean and rural regions, guaranteeing free Internet services and computer training to citizens with little or no access to technology.
(...)
President Chavez also announced that in Venezuela, only 273,537 Internet subscribers existed in the year 2000. But by the first trimester of 2009, more than 1,585,497 Internet subscribers were registered, an increase of 600%. “And the number of Internet users in 2000 was only 820,000 in Venezuela. Nine years later, that number has risen to 7,552,570 users, an increase of more than 900%”, indicated President Chavez. Let's take a look at the photos in the article. That's right, the article shows 3 photographs from an infocenter, all of them centered on Hugo and one of them shows that there is a true-to-life Hugo picture on the wall behind the real Hugo and the Hugos are filmed and shown on a screen that is also filmed, which causes infinitive Hugos. There's an internet address on the wall in one picture: infocentro.gob.ve At the bottom of that site, there is a thingie titled "Ubica tu Infocentro" — "find your infocenter" (needs flash, grrr), which brings you to a list of all the infocenters (http://infocentro.gob.ve/infocentros_buscar.php). There are 69 pages, all of them showing 10 results, with the exception of the last page which only shows 1 result. So there are apparantly at least 681 infocenters now (not counting the mobile ones I guess).

According to the article from March, Twitter "is used by more than 160,000" people in Venezuela. According to an article from May (No. 13 — "Revolution in Internet"), Chávez got an account there (chavezcandanga) and the number went to over 300,000. I'm pretty sure it's now over a million. Here is an excerpt from "Revolution in Internet":
Today, one of three Venezuelans has access to Internet, nearly 9.3 million people, according to the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL). That number is a 22.2% increase in users from just one year ago. 91.6% of those using Internet in Venezuela have high-speed access through a DSL or cable line, and the remaining 8.4% use "dial-up" via telephone modems.

Amazingly, 98 of 100 Venezuelans have cellular telephones. There are more than 28 million active cellular phone lines in Venezuela, and only 27 million citizens, including children. Venezuelans have some of the highest cellular telephone usage in the world and are the largest consumers of BlackBerrys on the planet. All cellular phone companies in the South American nation offer internet access, even for the most basic phone models. There was also a project with subsidized cheap mobile phones a while ago, it had some weird name like "the cock" or something.

[pranabjyoti]

I would say neither India or Venezuela are democracies. They bost rest their constitutions on the principle of elections which are an aritocratic rather than democratic principle. If India was a democracy with parliament chosen by llot, then you would have worker peasant ruleot
I just want to add that A REAL DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY IS A CLASSLESS SOCIETY. Until and unless, we can eliminate all classes. An calling for "democracy" in a class based society means making people fools.

[pranabjyoti]

Cockshott advocates selection by lot. Selection by lot in a society with a majority of proles implies that the majority of the assembly will be proles. A vanguard party that informs the public and stands for elections should only be a transient thing. There is a huge risk that psychopathic people rise in such an organization and make it into a permanent parasitic fixture.
Well, therefore the question stands on whether the majority of the people is proletariat i.e. working class or not. At least, in my India, most of the people belongs to peasants, a petty-bourgeoisie class with many backward and feudal mentality and behavior. As I myself don't know about Venezuela much, therefore I don't want to comment on it. But at least can say the calling for "participatory democracy" for countries like India instead of Dictatorship of Proletariat would be devastating. India needs "tyrants" like Stalin and Mao very dearly at present.

I see what you did there. I'm not a fan of Heinz Dieterich, but that was uncalled-for.
Just putting Herr before the name doesn't mean equating Dietrich and Hitler.

The government is improving internet penetration. My source is the, ahem, government newspaper that also has an English edition (headed by Eva Golinger, who is a bit of a conspiracy nut): http://www.correodelorinoco.gob.ve/english-edition
Let's take this to be true and authentic. But, science and technology don't mean Internet only. There are other aspects of it.

Look at the article in issue No. 4 (2010, March 26) with the title "Internet Revolution". Let's take a look at the photos in the article. That's right, the article shows 3 photographs from an infocenter, all of them centered on Hugo and one of them shows that there is a true-to-life Hugo picture on the wall behind the real Hugo and the Hugos are filmed and shown on a screen that is also filmed, which causes infinitive Hugos. There's an internet address on the wall in one picture: infocentro.gob.ve (http://infocentro.gob.ve) At the bottom of that site, there is a thingie titled "Ubica tu Infocentro" — "find your infocenter" (needs flash, grrr), which brings you to a list of all the infocenters (http://infocentro.gob.ve/infocentros_buscar.php). There are 69 pages, all of them showing 10 results, with the exception of the last page which only shows 1 result. So there are apparantly at least 681 infocenters now (not counting the mobile ones I guess).
Progress means development in all sectors of science and technology, not only Internet.

According to the article from March, Twitter "is used by more than 160,000" people in Venezuela. According to an article from May (No. 13 — "Revolution in Internet"), Chávez got an account there (chavezcandanga) and the number went to over 300,000. I'm pretty sure it's now over a million. Here is an excerpt from "Revolution in Internet": There was also a project with subsidized cheap mobile phones a while ago, it had some weird name like "the cock" or something.
Just google with "idea submission" and "submit an idea" or "submit a project" or such kind of phrases, you can see a lot of companies are seeking bright new ideas and projects. Even there are websites like www.ideaconnection.com, which is now acting as link between individual inventor, innovator and the company. This companies are mostly USA, UK or Europe based. All of them have a huge influx of brains all over the world, especially from third world countries. Still they are always in search of new idea, inventions and innovations. But, so far, I haven't seen the name of any Venezuelan company, whether state owned or not, in this section. It's a very good way to exploit the potential of Internet, but sorry to say, despite talking repeatedly about 21st century socialism, Venezuelan Govt. hasn't taken any step to use the most potent technology for the first part of 21st century, the Internet.
During WWII, USSR stunned the world with T-34 and other weapons and their extraordinary progress in science and technology. Idiot Nazis thought about soviet people to be backward, third worldly fools and prepared their strategies best on those assumptions. But, they got nasty surprise after surprises during the war. We know that most modern machine for fusion research, the Tokamak is invented in USSR. But, can inform me about something that is totally Venezuelan and unique for rest of the world?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have gone through your writings and sorry to say, in your writings, you have actually attacked the concept of "Dictatorship of Proletariat" and advocated petty-bourgeoisie liberalism in the name of "participatory democracy". In whole of your writings, there is very very little mention of class struggle Do you admit the existence class struggle between proletariat and petty-bourgeoisie?

So says a hardline adherent to the very petit-bourgeois practice of New Democracy :glare:

[el_chavista]

21st century socialism does not sweep away all soviet socialism. In Cockshott and Cottrell's book "New socialism" (http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/%7Ecottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf) you can read:
(1) Soviet society was indeed socialist.
(2) This society had many undesirable and problematic features.
(3) The problems of Soviet society were in part related to the extremely difficult historical circumstances in which the Bolsheviks set about trying to build socialism, but that is not all: important policy mistakes were made (just as possible in a socialist society as in capitalism), and furthermore
the problems of Soviet socialism in part reflect serious weaknesses in classical Marxism itself.
(4) The failure of the Soviet system is therefore by no means irrelevant to Marxian socialism. We must reflect carefully on the lessons to be learned from this failure.
(5) Nonetheless, unlike those who delight in proclaiming the complete historic rout of Marxism, we believe that a different type of socialism—still recognizably Marxian, yet substantially reformulated—is possible. The Soviet Union was socialist, but other forms of Marxian socialism are possible.
I think it is a "reductionism" of the M-L theory in that they don't state an strategic line on seizing power. They just substitute the term direct democracy for dictatorship of the proletariat. If this is an opportunistic stance to avoiding the lies of hegemonic capitalist propaganda, I think it is cute and cool.

[Paul Cockshott]

So says a hardline adherent to the very petit-bourgeois practice of New Democracy :glare:
Careful modern times, not sure that he does advocate new democracy, if some of his previous posts are anything to go by.

[bie]

21st century socialism does not sweep away all soviet socialism. In Cockshott and Cottrell's book "New socialism" you can read:
I think the main point was the question of the ownership of means of production and that "XXI century socialism" theory (or at least some parts of that) assumes the mixed forms of ownership: coexistence of private, cooperative and public property. I have few questions to supporters of that theory: (1) what sort of ownership of means of production do you recognize in the future socialist society? (2) what are your main points against XX century socialism (i.e. what do you consider to be its biggest mistake - it can be more that one thing)?

[el_chavista]

(1) what sort of ownership of means of production do you recognize in the future socialist society?
Even Chávez recognizes the social ownership of the means of production as a precondition for a democratic production for the needs of society:

the "elementary triangle" of socialism by President Hugo Chávez: (a) social ownership of the means of production, which is a basis for (b) social production organised by workers in order to (c) satisfy communal needs and communal purposes.

(2) what are your main points against XX century socialism (i.e. what do you consider to be its biggest mistake - it can be more that one thing)?


The slogan "all power to the soviets" wither out due to the "party-cracy".
There even was not democracy at the work places: the apparatchiki had the effective control of the means of production.

[bie]

Even Chávez recognizes the social ownership of the means of production as a precondition for a democratic production for the needs of society:
the "elementary triangle" of socialism by President Hugo Chávez: (a) social ownership of the means of production, which is a basis for (b) social production organised by workers in order to (c) satisfy communal needs and communal purposes.
Ok. We agree of necessity of social ownership, thats good. But what sort of social ownership do you find acceptable? In the book written by Paul Cockshott I have found the passage on the rejection of the state form of social ownership:


Towards a New Socialism[/I], p.179"] It may be argued by the advocates of market socialism that the Marxist idea
of planning the economy like one vast enterprise is a threat to democracy. On
the contrary, our case is that effective control by the citizens over the economy
requires that the means of production be the collective public property of the
citizens. We do not believe that state-owned enterprises as such , still less inde-
pendent workers’ cooperatives, provide an adequate form for public ownership
of the means of production
How should I understand that?

The slogan "all power to the soviets" wither out due to the "party-cracy".
I don't think it will work. A political party is an essential organization that is capable of multi functional management of the society, including development of cadres, carrying on internal and external policy. In my opinion it is not the question "party-cracy" or something else (what else by the way?) but - is the party enough revolutionary, does it represent the interest of the working class and other popular strata, is the science of marxism-leninism at its heart. So I would stick to the "partocracy" - but of a good, genuine revolutionary organization that has trust among the workers and the other popular strata.

There even was not democracy at the work places: the apparatchiki had the effective control of the means of production
I also disagree with that point. Democracy in the workplaces collides with the economic plan. Or the democracy in the workplaces - or the central plan. Or workers decide how much of what to produce (it has to be production on the market then); or the production quota is the part of the social management of the economy, that workers hold control via central institutions. The road to socialism is through that second solution.

[el_chavista]

OK, returning to the original topic, another article from the KKE packet of documents:

On the slogan “Socialism of the 21st century”
by Kyrillos Papastavrou
Member of the CC of KKE and Responsible
for the Ideological Committee of the CC

Today, a basic element of the crisis of the communist movement is that to
a large extent the view predominates concerning “national particularities” on
socialist revolution and socialist construction. Of course, socialist construction
under conditions of significant delays in capitalist development will have to
face greater difficulties, more complex tasks; it will require transitional measures,
a tough fight with the inherited remnants of the old society. The experience
accumulated from socialist construction can contribute to the maturity
and readiness of the subjective factor and first of all of its vanguard, the Communist
Party, for this task.

The difficulties in the policy of alliances between Communist Parties get
complicated also due to the fact that the political forces in government, such
as in Venezuela and Bolivia, maintain that they are preparing the “socialism
of the 21st century”, in contrast with the socialism that was constructed in the
20th century in the USSR and other countries of Eastern and Central Europe.
“Socialism of the 21st century”, according to the opinions of two leading cadres
of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), Alí Rodriguez and Alberto
Muller Rojas, is based on the redistribution of the wealth by the state; it does
not prohibit the establishment and activity of private capital as “it is a process
that does not restrict economic freedoms as it considers that antagonism is
democratic provided that it is clear and does not lead to the creation of oligopolies
or monopolies”; “it does not make the mistake to consider that it may
be imposed through the dictatorship of the proletariat”, and its intention is “the
expansion of public space” “the development of the productive capacity in
the framework of a viable economy through the creation of new –public, community
and private- enterprises and the enhancement of the already existing
ones”[Ali Rodrιguez Araque – Alberto Muller Rojas: “Socialism in Venezuela and the Party
that Will Promote it”, published by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela-PSUV,
published by ΚΨΜ, Athens, 2009, p. 48.].
They are classical and implemented positions of social-democracy, adopted
by opportunist forces that exert similar pressure on the line of communist
parties. Such theories are also adopted by opportunist forces in Greece.

When asked “if the administration of the bourgeois institutions, particularly
of the state governance” is a means “for its radical transformation in socialist
direction” they answer that “…there has been procedures that through
movements conquered the power, such as the case of Morales in Bolivia,
the Chavez ‘phenomenon’ in Venezuela...”. They reach the conclusion that
“…the revolutionary strategy for socialist transformation can only be identified
with the radical transformation of the state and the market towards their
abolition (withering away, according to Lenin) and that this process does not
begin ‘when political power is seized by the working class’; it is (or can be) carried
out also in a state of typical capitalist domination limiting the market field,
claiming ‘public space’ and ‘free services’ and mainly through the promotion of
forms of social and workers’ control and direct democracy in functions of the
state and the economy”[Article by Giannis Millios “Issues of Communist Strategy”,
review “Thesis”, issue 103, April-June 2008.]

This process will neither abolish nor diminish the exploitation of capital.
Thus, remains the need for independent organisation and ideological and political
action of the Communist Parties in order to gather forces for the prospect
of conflict and overthrow of capitalist power and exploitation.
Certainly, even the allegedly most radical version of the so-called “left wing
governments” in Latin American, e.g. in Venezuela, do not promote reforms
in order to approach socialism. In fact, there is no agreement between the
forces that support the government of Chavez on the content of the concept of
socialism, as has pointed out the General Secretary of the Communist Party
of Venezuela Oscar Figuera “Some people consider that socialism means to
offer breakfast to students, programmes. However, socialism is a profound
change of consciousness, sustained participation, and profound change in
the relations of production”[Interview with O.Figuera under the title “Socialism Means
Changing the Relations of Production”, “Rizospastis” newpaper, Sunday May 11, 2008].
The measures that have been taken do not affect the basis of the capitalist ownership
on the means of production nor the bourgeois character of the power.

Some measures, such as the establishment of community councils, popular
assemblies in the neighbourhoods, a system of “self-governance”, are institutions
included in the modernization of the bourgeois state, as had occured
in a number of European countries for decades, ensuring at the same time a
broader integration of the workers.

A prerequisite for socialism is the revolutionary consolidation of the power
of the working class which will promote new relations of production so as
to proceed to the construction of these relations, leading in this process the
entire population [also see the article “The theoretical Analysis of the Socialist Revolution
and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, lecture of the Ideological Section of the CC of KKE, KOMEP].

Another prerequisite is the demolition of the old state apparatus and
the establishment of new institutions of workers’ power.
The means of production become social property and are set not just under
state control in general, but under the control of a workers’ revolutionary
state. At the same time the prerequisites are developed for the merging of the
small size commodity production into cooperatives aiming at transforming it
into a directly social one. Socialism means central planning of the economy;
conscious setting of goals, plans, and incentives for the further development
of the communist relations of production aiming at the transition to a complete
communist society etc.

[bie]

OK, returning to the original topic, another article from the KKE packet of documents:
OK, so what perspective can you see for the revolution in Venezuela?

[el_chavista]

OK, so what perspective can you see for the revolution in Venezuela?
The president of the republic is the main rhetorical propagandist of socialism. But there are not enough true Marxist cadres to cope with the nationalist-reformist middle and high leadership. Only another strong reaction of the counter revolutionary forces (as during 2002-2003) may radicalize the Bolivarian revolutionaries.

[pranabjyoti]

So says a hardline adherent to the very petit-bourgeois practice of New Democracy :glare:
From where have you learned that New Democracy denies the existence of class struggle between proletariat and petty-bourgeoisie. Kindly note that New Democracy is the initial phase when petty-bourgeoisie class and proletariat stand side by side and fight against feudal remains, crony capitalism and imperialism. That doesn't mean they will always remain friends.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was referring to the New Democratic inclusion of the illusory "national bourgeoisie." I was also referring to the New Democratic ignorance of divisions amongst the Third World petit-bourgeoisie between the compradors and the "nationals."

[Thirsty Crow]

So I would stick to the "partocracy" - but of a good, genuine revolutionary organization that has trust among the workers and the other popular strata.

And here's your problem.
This solution rests solely on good faith and not on any kind of scientific, critical approach to the legacy of "partocracy" as a historical phenomenon. This seems really weak, in that it does not anticipate any kind of mechanism or institution for the workers who have lost trust in their organization, i.e. the ruling party. This danger becoems especially prominent in the case of the failure of the spreadout of radical transformations across borders. And it amounts to an illusory "hoping for the best".
And something else: the dichotomy "all power to the soviets" vs. "partocracy" seems false to me and I think that it is necessary to overcome it.

I apologize for being somewhat vague, but I do really think that following the "partocratic" line may bring severe difficulties.

[bie]

This seems really weak, in that it does not anticipate any kind of mechanism or institution for the workers who have lost trust in their organization, i.e. the ruling party.This danger becoems especially prominent in the case of the failure of the spreadout of radical transformations across borders. And it amounts to an illusory "hoping for the best".
For start - that "partocratic" model was quite successful in socialist countries for many years. It allowed workin class not only to gain power, but also to defend it and to make steps towards communism. So the success in the practice is the argument for the Leninist model of the dictatorship of proletariat.

I think that the problem of the degeneration of the communist party has been also sorted out, at least theoretically. The purges, i.e. periodic verification of the party membership is the regulatory mechanism applied in order to prevent the party from the degeneration and loss of its working class character. I think that we can agree that this was one of the main internal reasons for the victory of counterrevolution in Easter Europe. How many verifications of party membership were done in its late period? None. Therefore careerists and opportunists as well as traitors like Yeltsin could not only bear the party membership, but rise to a significant posts. It also allowed petit-bourgeoisie elements and even pro-bourgeoisie ideology in. The reason was that the essential struggle against opportunism in the party was weakened in its late period.

And something else: the dichotomy "all power to the soviets" vs. "partocracy" seems false to me and I think that it is necessary to overcome it.
True. "All power to the soviets" does not exist on itself. Pyramid of Soviets makes the institutional form of the organization of society. Political party is the tool in hands of working class to use soviets in order to build classless society.

[Paul Cockshott]

I have few questions to supporters of that theory:

(1) what sort of ownership of means of production do you recognize in the future socialist society?

(2) what are your main points against XX century socialism (i.e. what do you consider to be its biggest mistake - it can be more that one thing)?

I speak for myself not others here but I would say that the question of the forms of ownership in a socialist society depend a lot on the starting point. In a country where most of the housing stock was already socially owned for example, one would expect that to continue, whereas if most of the housing was owner occupied, one would expect that to continue. So one has to ask the question in the context of particular initial economies.

Suppose one looks at Western Europe, you start off with a combination of modes of production :
1. Direct public production in some areas like education, and also in some countries health and broadcasting.
2. Private capitalist production.
3. Domestic production -- still arguably the dominant economic form in terms of the hours of effort it absorbs.
4. Self employed production.

One would expect that the direct public production would tend to expand to displace both some private and some domestic activities -- increasing social provision of childcare, replacement of private schools and nurseries with public ones, increasing transfer of medical/dental/opthalmic practictitioners from self employed to salared public servants.

Private capitalist production would be eliminated by the abolition of wage labour -- which would transform the commodity producing firms essentially into workers coops. Subsequently these would be incorporated into a system of social planned production.

Domestic production would shrink in two ways :
1. the provision of increasing number of child care facilities and restaurants
2. the experimental introduction of communal forms of living after the style of Phalanstère or Kibutzim.

Self employed production would persist in some areas, particularly in agriculture. If one looks at Europe or North America, where family farms are already highly mechanised, the gains from collectivisation or cooperative farming would be much lower than they were in less industrialised economies so one would expect private farms to continue but selling primarily to public marketing boards under planned contracts drawn up based on nutritional need.

Replacement of paper money by electronic labour accounts would ensure that self employed people could not be credited with more labour hours than was allowed by working time directives -- say 48 hours in non agricultural activity, longer perhaps in farming. This would prevent speculation and private profiteering.


Major weaknesses of the property system in hithertoo existing socialist economies : one has to take into account that fact that these were diverse. Polish and Bulgarian agriculture for example were very different. Generic weaknesses though:

1. Failure to address seriously the problem of transforming the domestic mode of production leading to systematic overburdening of female labour and underpaying of women's work.

2. Failure to institute full equivalence payment based on labour time, this meant that Soviet collective farmers for example, were seriously underpaid for the labour content of the crops they delivered to the state; industrial workers were paid significantly less than the labour they contributed. Female trades and professions systematically underpaid relative to male ones etc.

3. Persistence of the enterprise as a partial juridical subject, carrying out cost accouning in money in parallel with the in kind planning targets.

4. Dependence free of public services on the transfered profits of state enterprises rather than on income tax -- hides the process of taxation, and perpetuates the ambiguities in point 3. Also tied to point 2, this means that labour was systematically undervalued reducing the incentive for socialist enterprises to introduce labour saving technology.

3.

[Paul Cockshott]

For start - that "partocratic" model was quite successful in socialist countries for many years. It allowed workin class not only to gain power, but also to defend it and to make steps towards communism. So the success in the practice is the argument for the Leninist model of the dictatorship of proletariat.

That is a fair point, it would be foolish to deny that for several decades that
system did work.



I think that the problem of the degeneration of the communist party has been also sorted out, at least theoretically. The purges, i.e. periodic verification of the party membership is the regulatory mechanism applied in order to prevent the party from the degeneration and loss of its working class character. I think that we can agree that this was one of the main internal reasons for the victory of counterrevolution in Easter Europe. How many verifications of party membership were done in its late period? None. Therefore careerists and opportunists as well as traitors like Yeltsin could not only bear the party membership, but rise to a significant posts. It also allowed petit-bourgeoisie elements and even pro-bourgeoisie ideology in. The reason was that the essential struggle against opportunism in the party was weakened in its late period.

.

I think you should ask why the purge system was abandoned?

I would suggest it was because it was against the interest of many members of the ruling party. Such a reliance on purges was inherently unstable and self limiting.

[Thirsty Crow]

For start - that "partocratic" model was quite successful in socialist countries for many years. It allowed workin class not only to gain power, but also to defend it and to make steps towards communism. So the success in the practice is the argument for the Leninist model of the dictatorship of proletariat. As you've said, the "pyramid" model didn't enable the working class as a whole to gain power, but it lead to a partitioning of the working class, and exactly this constitutes what some people call the "bureaucratic degeneration". Furthermore, in no way whatsoever did the ideologues of actually exsiting socialism advance the revolution in economically more advanced societies (e.g. the "official" communist party of France and its actions during '68.). And steps towards communism simply CANNOT be made within the opposing blocs perspective. In other words, global revolution, global socialism, and global communism. The success in practice of which you speak is a mere success in comparison to all the evils of the capitalist mode of production. It is not and cannot be taken as an ultimate (empirical and historical) validation of the leninist model.


I think that the problem of the degeneration of the communist party has been also sorted out, at least theoretically. The purges, i.e. periodic verification of the party membership is the regulatory mechanism applied in order to prevent the party from the degeneration and loss of its working class character. Who or what body does conduct these periodic verifications? Which method of "verification" is used?

[bie]

I think you should ask why the purge system was abandoned?

I would suggest it was because it was against the interest of many members of the ruling party. Such a reliance on purges was inherently unstable and self limiting.
I have a different opinion. Purges were an implication of the political line of the struggle with opportunism, that usually represents non-proletarian and non-communist elements. In the historical perspective, this line was abandoned a few years after the II WW. I suggest an explanation, that in order to defeat fascism party leadership had to loose its stance on groups and stratas, non always friendly towards deepening of socialist relations. In other words communist party had to look for allies also among circles considered as opportunistic. And this alliance allowed opportunistic tendencies to get an access to the ruling party and eventually change its whole political line (XX Congress). Since then the struggle against opportunism was no longer a major part of the political practice, that may indicate that opportunistic elements were already there.

In other words - the degeneration of party was the consequence of the change in its political line.

[Proletarian Ultra]

The new situation is mainly defined by opposition to US imperialism -this however leads to the identification of the concept of imperialism with the US, and...due to the erroneous analysis of the contemporary world and the prevalence of opportunist influences, the bourgeois class is wrongly differentiated as a national one and one subjected to foreign influence

The KKE calling someone else out for paranoid nationalism is pretty hi-larious.


The socialism that the president of Venezuela refers to and has been adopted by the Unified Socialist Party...is far from scientific socialism.

I think this is a legitimate criticism. Chavez is an eclecticist.


The discussion developed around ‘the new socialism’ highlights the necessity of intensification of the ideological-political struggle, the strengthening of Communist Parties and the creation of the communist pole of Marxist-Leninist parties that will decisively defend the principles of class struggle, the necessity of socialist revolution, the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of socialism based on the political power of the working class, the socialisation of the means of production, central planning and workers’ control.

This is just boilerplate. How, in a Latin American context, might one do this? What relation should M-L Communist parties take to PSUV and MAS etc.? Without a concrete answer to those questions, words like the above are just idealism and voluntaryism.

Really this read mostly like sour grapes.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I speak for myself not others here but I would say that the question of the forms of ownership in a socialist society depend a lot on the starting point. In a country where most of the housing stock was already socially owned for example, one would expect that to continue, whereas if most of the housing was owner occupied, one would expect that to continue. So one has to ask the question in the context of particular initial economies.

I think you should have posted something like this in my Economics thread on Cooperative Production. Here you have outlined a possible Cooperative road to communist production succinctly.

As you already know from what I've written, I see four roads simultaneously: litigation, syndicalism (especially One Big General Strike occurring after the political revolution), cooperatives, and the traditional public ownership expansion (even if done by sovereign socioeconomic governments instead of the traditional state).

[Paul Cockshott]

That road was already there in the Preface to the Czech edition of Towards a New Socialism
http://reality.gn.apc.org/germanpreface.pdf

[Artemis3]

There was also a project with subsidized cheap mobile phones a while ago, it had some weird name like "the cock" or something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergatario

Its a ZTE rebrand assembled in the country. "The cock" is a translation mistake from the slang of a shorter word. The meaning is sort of "Optimal".

[Die Neue Zeit]

That road was already there in the Preface to the Czech edition of Towards a New Socialism
http://reality.gn.apc.org/germanpreface.pdf

I already have a PDF of this, but the cooperative road alluded to in that file wasn't clear enough, especially in relation to domestic production. The EU transitional program you wrote was more explicit, but it too didn't relate to domestic production.

Neither document addressed the role of self-employment like you did above:


Replacement of paper money by electronic labour accounts would ensure that self employed people could not be credited with more labour hours than was allowed by working time directives -- say 48 hours in non agricultural activity, longer perhaps in farming. This would prevent speculation and private profiteering.

Until then, I had no concrete ideas on tackling the self-employment problem beyond the directional measure "Establishing an equal obligation on all able-bodied individuals to perform socially productive labour and other socially necessary labour, be it manual or mental" and your suggestion of turning at least some of them into salaried public servants.

What I just wrote is in light of the Cuban government's decision to promote self-employment, which is undoubtedly some sort of market orientation no matter what the mainstream media or Cuban tankies would like to say.

[Proletarian Ultra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergatario

Its a ZTE rebrand assembled in the country. "The cock" is a translation mistake from the slang of a shorter word. The meaning is sort of "Optimal".

verga is cock...so vergatario is something like 'cocktacular' or 'dick-a-riffic'.

[Artemis3]

Sorry but Maracuchos use the vergatario word for something non dick related, in fact they often use the verga word for non dick meanings.

The current meaning of vergatario is "something outstanding", it is the common usage in Zulia. Perhaps this word lost its cock meaning by overuse, simillar to the english F word which might not imply intercourse anymore.

To me verga doesn't imply a penis, we have pene for that, and the most used is actually guevo, often accompanied with the verb meter or mamar.

I think this discussion could be moved to the spanish chit-chat section.

[bie]

On "Twenty-first Century Socialism"



Recently, Marxism-Leninism Today (website) posted an article from Dimitris Karagiannis ("On the Opportunist Theory of '21st Century Socialism' ") followed by a rejoinder from Stan Smith ("Reply to Greek CP about the 'Opportunism' of 21st Century Socialism")


To my mind, the popular theorists and theories of "twenty-first century socialism," influenced by anti-Communist dogma and idealist ideology, are recommending an approach that will only make the road to socialism more difficult. Their refusal to heed the lessons of twentieth-century revolutions creates an incomplete program for winning socialism.


At the same time, I recognize the right of our Venezuelan, Bolivian, and other Latin American comrades to find their own road to socialism. Undoubtedly their revolutions will exhibit unique features not shared with earlier revolutions. Different times, different social forces, and different circumstances dictate different paths.


Yet there are even more important constants: the need to confront and defeat imperial aggression and "their own" bourgeoisie. This is precisely where the lessons from the past are crucial.


I also recognize that our comrades in Latin America may be pursuing other, more limited goals besides socialism. They may well seek a liberal state with constraints on capitalism, a generous social safety net, and freedom from foreign domination. This, too, is their right. But it is not socialism.


In any case, I join with Stan Smith in supporting the Venezuelan and Bolivian developments. Quoting Stan: "The Bolivarian process in Venezuela is an inspiration for millions..."


Yet I find the Karagiannis contribution fully consistent with and attuned to this understanding. Karagiannis' quarrel and mine are with the theories and theorist of "twenty-first century socialism." Karagiannis' brief and pointed piece addresses the thinking that denies the lessons of earlier socialist revolutions and postures a "new thinking" based upon fanciful concepts of multi-class cooperation. I'm not sure that Stan fully grasps the distinction between respecting and supporting people in motion and sharply criticizing theories that may detour or derail a socialist project.


Karragiannis clearly distinguishes between the fight against imperialism and the struggle for socialism. At a time when advocacy of socialism has declined with the fall of the Soviet Union and other socialist and socialist-oriented states, the anti-imperialist struggle has taken center stage in many forms and in many arenas of struggle.


Unrestrained capitalist powers have sought to reshape the world into satrapies of trans-national companies. Resistance has emerged from many unforeseen and often socially and politically tainted movements, including Islamic fundamentalism. While liberals may recoil in horror, these movements are objectively anti-imperialist and deserving of our support insofar as they combat the domination of imperialist powers and their agenda.


More heartening, movements in Latin America have developed - and in some cases secured a measure of political power - not only to confront imperialism, but to achieve independence from its long-standing dominance of the region. They have defied imperialism, principally US imperialism, while also loosening or breaking the exploitative economic and social relations long retarding growth, development and social justice.


Accompanying this anti-imperialism and separating their struggle from that in many other parts of the world, these developments in the Southern Hemisphere project progressive programs engaging the masses, aiming towards greater economic and social equality, and encouraging political participation. In addition, they aspire to equitable and cooperative relations throughout the region. This progressive agenda quite naturally fosters a discussion of socialism.


Of course there are and always have been many visions of socialism since the time of Fourier and Robert Owen. Indeed, they were proto-socialist visions of a just society long before then. I read Karagiannis to advocate a particular vision – the one associated with the Marxist-Leninist tradition.


In his brief essay, he identifies the two key components of this vision which I and others associate with scientific socialism, as opposed to speculative or utopian socialism. Those two components are:




Achieving state power for the working class and its class allies.
Public ownership and management of the economic engine and the ideological apparatus.



To advocate these two as necessary conditions for a viable socialism is not to preclude many distinctive and original paths to socialism as national features and circumstances dictate. I see no dogma in the Karagiannis position, only the accumulated experience of 150 years of the working class movement and the theoretical refinements accompanying this experience.


Certainly there is much more that could be said about the contours of a future socialist society, though it would largely be speculative. A democratic people's state and the challenges facing that state would determine these contours. Beyond lessons drawn from the Paris Commune, Marx and Engels were, I believe, wisely and deliberately silent on the details.


Additionally, Karagiannis advocates the necessity of a vanguard party as an essential instrument in achieving socialism. While it may well be wrong to foreclose other instruments under uncommon circumstances, it is a certainty that an organization bearing a clear understanding of and dedicated commitment to class struggle, an organization with an unswerving goal of socialism and workers' power generally must exist or emerge to steer a successful revolutionary course.


That organization functions as the vanguard, the "advanced guard" - not as a substitute for the masses or an aloof leader, but as the most principled, most decisively partisan element of the masses. Those who deny the role of a vanguard display a historically unfounded faith in spontaneity – the notion that a leaderless, ideological diverse mass will somehow stumble its way down the path to socialism.


One cannot predict the evolution of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, the party formed at Hugo Chavez's instigation from the diverse parties supporting his election. But surely it has yet to forge the unity around the cause for socialism that it has shown in its support for Chavez. As Karagiannis has suggested, its multi-class, multi-tendency make-up is a serious challenge. In my view, these uncertainties explain why the Venezuelan Communist Party has remained outside of the new party while supportive of the Chavez presidency and the Bolivarian process.


I am less circumspect about Chavez's call for a Fifth International organized around "twenty-first century socialism." At best this call for unity is wildly premature, at worst, divisive and confusing. It is no wonder that it has been met with icy silence outside of a few Western intellectual circles.





The Lessons of the Cuban Revolution


It should be of some interest that the only successful socialist revolution in our hemisphere – the Cuban revolution – offers many lessons that are often overlooked in the current debate over "twenty-first century socialism." Perhaps those caught up in the moment cannot see beyond the artificial millennial barrier.


More likely, the new thinking on socialism refuses to reflect upon an experience that is at odds with its own theoretical disposition. In a recent issue of Monthly Review, John Bellamy Foster wrote of a leading proponent of "twenty-first century socialism," Marta Harnecker:


Harnecker argues strenuously against a narrow "workerist" view of revolution, and against all kinds of revolutionary isms: "vanguardism, verticalism, authoritarianism," excessive centralism etc. Socialism for the twenty-first century, in her vision, is a revolution defined by its commitment to protagonist democracy... She tells us: "Chavez – influenced by Jose Carlos Mariategui – thinks that twenty-first century socialism cannot be a carbon copy of anything but has to be a 'heroic creation'". That is why he talks of a Bolivarian, Christian, Robinsonian [referring to Simon Rodriguez], Indoamerican socialism...


At the same time, Bellamy attributes to Harnecker the view that the Venezuelan process "...is putting forth new principles and modalities of revolutionary change that may aid in the formation of similar struggles worldwide."


Indeed, in one sense, this is a "new" approach to socialism – one that departs consciously from the Marxist vision of socialist revolution – but also one that departs vastly from the Cuban experience. Socialism did not come to Cuba with the overthrow of Batista. That signal event only marked the beginning of an intense, protracted class struggle against US intervention on behalf of US other transnational companies and, importantly, the Cuban bourgeoisie. The Bacardi Company was a huge multi-national before and after Batista. The Cuban tobacco industry was also the material basis for a national bourgeoisie and petite-bourgeoisie.


The detritus of this class struggle was the mass of counterrevolutionary, anti-socialist, anti-Communists who fled to the Miami area. They were the losers in the class struggle for socialism. The Cuban workers and peasants were the winners. Importantly, this internal class struggle was carried out with the mobilization of the masses: workers and peasants. In the process of this struggle, the state was necessarily transformed from an organ of imperialist and bourgeois rule into one of people's power. The exigencies of struggle determined this course even more than theory.


This is a factual point worth pondering. Whatever the rebel army saw as their vision of a free Cuba, the realities of Cuban social life, with its class divisions and class relations with external forces, determined the course of consolidating and advancing the revolution.


Put simply, class struggle saved the revolution from dissolving into one more bourgeois coup and put it firmly on the road to socialism. And this has been the course of all twentieth-century socialist revolutions. Contrary to the "new" approach touted by Harnecker, Hans Dietrich Steffan and others, the actual history of all successful socialist revolutions shows the centrality of class and class struggle in fighting for socialism – the empirical confirmation of the Marxist theory of socialist revolution. The insights drawn by Marx after the Paris Commune remain affirmed by experience.


Transforming state power into a force capable of defending the people's interest and winning socialism is necessarily a process of centralization and establishing a new authority. And so it was in Cuba. Bourgeois democratic forms, adopted in the first year of the revolution, were at best a brake on the revolutionary process, at worse an enemy. They were shed as they became more and more contradictory to the further defense of the revolution's gains and the advance to socialism. Again, necessity bred policy. How a vague, utopian notion of "protagonist democracy" would answer this necessity is beyond my imagination.


As the years have passed, Cuban socialism has created a people's democracy that sharply contrasts with the corruption, deceit, elitism, and capitalist class domination of the Western bourgeois democratic form.


The defense of revolutionary gains and the advancement towards socialism similarly necessitated the consolidation of a vanguard organization. From the 26th of July Movement and diverse other social forces at the time of the overthrow of Batista, the leading revolutionary elements evolved into the Integrated Revolutionary Organizations in 1961, the United Party of the Cuban Socialist Revolution in 1963, and the Communist Party of Cuba in 1965.


Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the history of the time will note the correlation of this process of forming a strong vanguard organization with the escalating intensity of imperialist intervention: the Bay of Pigs invasion (April 1961), CIA covert actions, the missile crisis (October 1962) and CIA-instigated internal resistance and the rise of the Miami Cuban counterrevolutionary right. The creation and consolidation of a leading force in Cuban society was an essential element in confronting and defeating these formidable enemies. Would we have Cuban socialism if the people had rejected "vanguardism"? This is a question evaded by the new theorists of socialism.



Why a "New" Theory of Socialist Revolution?



I draw attention to the Cuban revolution, not because it offers a template for Latin American socialism, but because the experience is totally disregarded by many of the theorists of "twenty-first century socialism." The theories of Harnecker, Dietrich Steffan and other academic "consultants" and advocates for the "new" socialism ignore the lessons of the only successful socialist revolution in the Western hemisphere.


The Cuban road has been bumpy and not without error – as the most venerated figure of the revolution, Fidel Castro, is wont to point out. But it is astounding that the policies, institutions, and ideological stances adopted by Cuban revolutionaries in the heat of battle are spurned for prescriptions spun from the heads of thinkers detached from the trenches of struggle. Paradoxically, they argue for worker self-management and autonomy while dictating the "new" road of struggle from their studies. While not from or among the liberating masses, they rail against "imported" theories. Instead, they claim revolution as their laboratory for their own pet theories.


Of course this is not new. As the Cuban revolutionary process developed in response to the moves of its enemies, there was no lack of US, European, and Latin American observers freely giving "advice" to the Cubans. Like our twenty-first century proponents, they were anxious to warn revolutionaries of the errors of earlier revolutionary movements. They readily expressed their concerns that the revolution would produce violence or repression or deviate from norms of middle-class tolerance.


With the advancement of the revolutionary process, they melted away, claiming betrayal of sacred principles. With the romance of the guerilla replaced by the even more challenging task of building socialism – a task requiring resolve, realism, and tactical and strategic finesse – the Western academic "friends" of the revolution lost their fervor. Many became critics, even enemies, of the revolutionary process.


Today's new theorists of socialist revolution show many of the same traits. They share the same absolutist and universalist values that were both a mainstay and product of Cold War academia. From hysterical anti-Communist Sidney Hook's infamous CIA-promoted notion of the absolute and supreme value of petit-bourgeois "freedom" to contemporary dogmas of universal individual rights, intellectuals attempt to establish the bounds of revolutionary action.


Embedded in their theories are idealist principles distant, if not incompatible with, the achievement and defense of socialism. Such high-minded notions as "participatory democracy" or "protagonist democracy," "worker-organized production," "satisfaction of communal needs," or "decentralization" are formalistic abstractions untested in the crucible of class struggle and far too rigid to fit the uncertainties of any revolutionary moment. Indeed, when imposed from the lofty perch of friendly "consultants," they are inherently undemocratic.


But it is not merely intellectual arrogance that leads some intellectuals to offer a road map to socialist revolution. The "isms" that they so intensely oppose – "vanguardism," "workerism," etc – are calculated code-words for the theoretical stance developed in the workers' movement since the Paris Commune and elaborated on by revolutionaries from Lenin to Fidel. These words are lightening rods that conveniently conjure up the specter of Communism.


Yes, the twentieth century was the era of Communist revolution. And yes, Communists played a leading theoretical and activist role in these revolutions. But the new theorists want no part of this tradition, a tradition demonized by the capitalist media, Cold Warriors, and an assortment of capitalist lap dogs and, in their mind, tainted with evil. It is this tradition that they identify with twentieth-century socialism and it is this tradition that prompts the spinning of new, speculative theories bearing the tag "twenty-first century socialism." At its root, much of "twenty-first century socialism" is anti-Communist socialism.


I thank Dimitris Karagiannis for bringing these issues into the open air of comradely debate. I welcome Stan Smith's stimulating, impassioned response that will only serve to further discussion and generate greater clarity.


However, I must take issue with Stan Smith's off-hand dismissal of the Soviet experience. He wrote: "Obviously, the people in the Soviet bloc did not think their 20th century socialism belonged to them or that they needed to defend it..." Not only is it not obviously true, it is not true at all. There is much more to learn from that experience. Debating the role of the Soviet Union and the East European socialist states would take us far from this topic, but surely Stan Smith should reflect on the fact that opinion polls taken today in Eastern Europe and the former USSR continue to shock Western conservative commentators. In those lands, there is a stubborn popular conviction, a growing conviction, that a better life was lost with the events of two decades ago.


Greg Godels

[pranabjyoti]

The problem which neither Dietrich, nor Chavez have understood that Stalin and USSR, as we know it was in the 20's to 50's of the last century and now we are in the first epoch of 21st century. Technologies, specially information technology was virtually non-existent then and other technologies are backward too. Therefore, what we know about USSR is the best that can be derived from the level of development of technologies of that day. Criticizing USSR while standing on today's level of technology is very easy, but I am really curious to know how much "bolivarian revolution" can progress based on technologies of that time.

[Barry Lyndon]

This is just boilerplate. How, in a Latin American context, might one do this? What relation should M-L Communist parties take to PSUV and MAS etc.? Without a concrete answer to those questions, words like the above are just idealism and voluntaryism.

Really this read mostly like sour grapes.

This to me seems to be the basis of most left criticism of the Bolivarian Revolution-whether from Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Trotskyists, anarchists or Left Communists. Their whining and carping all has the same tone, coming down to that its not their preferred shade of red.

I really don't mind that Chavez has developed his own brand of socialism. The only way the socialist project will move forward in the 21st century is if it preserves what is helpful about its historical traditions while discarding the chains of dogma.

[Paul Cockshott]

yes, scandinavian and russian social democracy had their achievements as did asian communism, but the future will not be recapitulation of the 20th c.

[RED DAVE]

I really don't mind that Chavez has developed his own brand of socialism.Wiyh all due respect Barry, what are the criteria that you are using for terming what Chavez is doing to be socialism?

RED DAVE

[neosyndic]

x

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It would be nice if he explained the country's "economic emergency" because what I see is one of the few (maybe the only one?) latin america countries to not dip in recession, despite the whole capitalist world crumbling down. The accumulated state debt remains very low, the state deficit is small, the external sector had a surplus in 2009. I'd hardly say that Cuba is the country with the fundamental problems. Dragged down by everyone else? Yes, that I can believe.




Cuba has been dragged down by everyone else, indeed. But to deny that it has fundamental economic problems is simply ignoring the reality of the situation. I'm a supporter of the CPC and its efforts, but even so, one cannot deny the severe problems they face, economically. Food is in short supply, there is no money to renovate roads, buildings etc. I'm not placing the blame on Socialism, the US embargo is clearly undermining the efforts of the Communist Party there, but you cannot look at the country with £5cuc bags of pasteurised milk, with two currencies that work completely at odds with each other and look at the general shortage of goods, the emptiness of many stores and say that they do not have fundamental economic problems. I'd go as far as saying that the current economic malaise in Cuba is a direct threat to the continuation of Socialism in Cuba.

[pranabjyoti]

For start - that "partocratic" model was quite successful in socialist countries for many years. It allowed workin class not only to gain power, but also to defend it and to make steps towards communism. So the success in the practice is the argument for the Leninist model of the dictatorship of proletariat.

I think that the problem of the degeneration of the communist party has been also sorted out, at least theoretically. The purges, i.e. periodic verification of the party membership is the regulatory mechanism applied in order to prevent the party from the degeneration and loss of its working class character. I think that we can agree that this was one of the main internal reasons for the victory of counterrevolution in Easter Europe. How many verifications of party membership were done in its late period? None. Therefore careerists and opportunists as well as traitors like Yeltsin could not only bear the party membership, but rise to a significant posts. It also allowed petit-bourgeoisie elements and even pro-bourgeoisie ideology in. The reason was that the essential struggle against opportunism in the party was weakened in its late period.

True. "All power to the soviets" does not exist on itself. Pyramid of Soviets makes the institutional form of the organization of society. Political party is the tool in hands of working class to use soviets in order to build classless society.
I agree with you totally. Actually, most of us here are just unable to understand that NO COMMUNIST PARTY CAN BE BEYOND DIALECTIC MATERIALISM I.E. IT CAN NOT BE WITHOUT CONFLICTS. As per DM, every matter has conflict inherent in it nothing in this Universe can be out of that. A party is not exception and in present scenario for the last centuries, the conflict that would be going on inside parties are between petty-bourgeoisie and proletariat. The petty-bourgeoisie always try to conquer the leadership and flood the party and hijack its ideology. The proletariat have to defend its position by continuous ideological struggle and expelling petty-bourgeoisie elements out of the party, IN SHORT BY PURGING. It's basically like clearing the field of weeds for harvesting. When the weeding is stopped, the weeds quickly returned and replace the crops. That same thing happened repeatedly in the parties during the 20th century and we too have to continue weeding to get good harvest.

[pranabjyoti]

yes, scandinavian and russian social democracy had their achievements as did asian communism, but the future will not be recapitulation of the 20th c.
Well, nobody at present is talking about repeating the 20th century, not even Maoists of India, Nepal, Philippines, IN SHORT NOWHERE IN THE WORLD. But, such phrases had often been used by revisionists, opportunists to denounce and negate the very idea of "dictatorship of proletariat" and other basic ideological points of socialism. We should be aware about that fact.
What irritates me that so far, none have talked about proper international co-operation between like minded people like us regarding progress of science and technology. WHICH SHOULD BE VERY BASIC POINT OF DIFFERENCE FROM 20 C, NOTHING OTHER THAN THAT.

[Kiev Communard]

The problem of "XXI century socialism" is the very vagueness of this concept as a whole. Everyone is talking about it, and everybody uses its own definition - from plain old social-democratic to the New Left-style one. And that makes the very notion of "XXI century socialism" somewhat theoretically blurred.

[pranabjyoti]

The problem of "XXI century socialism" is the very vagueness of this concept as a whole. Everyone is talking about it, and everybody uses its own definition - from plain old social-democratic to the New Left-style one. And that makes the very notion of "XXI century socialism" somewhat theoretically blurred.
The blur will be cleared if you see everything from the viewpoint of proletariat.

[neosyndic]

x