The Concept of "Siege" Socialism....

[RadioRaheem84]

Lately I've been really fascinated by the concept of siege socialism laid out in Michael Parenti's book Blackshirts and Reds. I think it does a lot to dispel the myths surrounding the former socialist blocs and other socialist nations. But is it really a workable theory to explain the state of ML States.

From what I gathered from it, there is a big difference between socialist nations and third world nations in the periphery of global capitalism.

Nations like the USSR, Cuba, NK, etc. were all sieged, invaded, sabotaged and economically strangled. What became of them was due to the mass 'militarization' (don't have another word for it) of their governments and this led to bureaucratization and internal corruption.

That is different from the third world nations like Haiti and the Dominican Republic which have their resources extracted by nations at the center of global capitalism.

I explained all of this to my brother who debated with me about what the legacy of Ireland would've been had it too become a Socialist Republic in the early start of the last century.

I told him that, from a bourgeois persoective, yes Ireland would've been better off without socialism.

But that would only be because it would've been spared from economic blockade, invasion, terror and sabotage from the imperial center nations, had it become a Socialist Republic.

It probably would've ended up like Cuba (not that Cuba is all that bad anyways), for it would have not known one day of peace.

Besides, even with all the praise for new Ireland after the new millennium, most of Ireland's gains came from speculative gains in finance during the 90s which allowed for them to develop. It wasn't a lasting thing but a boom that they played to their advantage. Now they're broke and will probably feel the brunt of austerity.

What's everyone else's opinion of Parenti's analysis?

Are there any other books that address the subject?

[RadioRaheem84]

Anyone. :confused:

[Dimentio]

I am thinking we need to build up socialism in the shape of a "multi-national union/cooperative/corporation", instead of a state.

[Obs]

Lately I've been really fascinated by the concept of siege socialism laid out in Michael Parenti's book Blackshirts and Reds. I think it does a lot to dispel the myths surrounding the former socialist blocs and other socialist nations. But is it really a workable theory to explain the state of ML States.

From what I gathered from it, there is a big difference between socialist nations and third world nations in the periphery of global capitalism.

Nations like the USSR, Cuba, NK, etc. were all sieged, invaded, sabotaged and economically strangled. What became of them was due to the mass 'militarization' (don't have another word for it) of their governments and this led to bureaucratization and internal corruption.

That is different from the third world nations like Haiti and the Dominican Republic which have their resources extracted by nations at the center of global capitalism.

I explained all of this to my brother who debated with me about what the legacy of Ireland would've been had it too become a Socialist Republic in the early start of the last century.

I told him that, from a bourgeois persoective, yes Ireland would've been better off without socialism.

But that would only be because it would've been spared from economic blockade, invasion, terror and sabotage from the imperial center nations, had it become a Socialist Republic.

It probably would've ended up like Cuba (not that Cuba is all that bad anyways), for it would have not known one day of peace.

Besides, even with all the praise for new Ireland after the new millennium, most of Ireland's gains came from speculative gains in finance during the 90s which allowed for them to develop. It wasn't a lasting thing but a boom that they played to their advantage. Now they're broke and will probably feel the brunt of austerity.

What's everyone else's opinion of Parenti's analysis?

Are there any other books that address the subject?
Yup, that looks about right.

[Amphictyonis]

It looks like Parenti has read Marx and understands socialism is born out of the womb of advanced capitalist nations.(sarcasm)

[penguinfoot]

Uh, this hardly strikes me as a brilliant concept or theoretical innovation. It is basically a way of saying that countries such as Cuba were/are socialist whilst still being able to avoid the claim that all of the forms of economic and political oppression that were exhibited by those countries (or which are claimed to have been present in the countries) are lies and have been made up - it's a pretty standard Stalinist argument, or an argument that lets Stalinists appear something other than totally idiotic by not forcing them to argue that everything bad that has ever been said about societies like Cuba is a lie and part of a vast conspiracy, and it goes like this: "yes, there were mistakes made, but, those mistakes were mainly the result of external factors, and they don't detract from those countries being fundamentally socialist". Its flaw lies in the fact that it reduces socialism to something like a nationalized economy and the provision of public welfare (neither of which are distinctly socialist, because they have all existed at various times and in various forms in societies that everyone accepts to be capitalist) and makes it possible, logically speaking, for a socialist society to embody a highly oppressive and undemocratic political state, rather than acknowledging that socialism is necessarily based around the reintegration of the economic and the political, through the rule of the associated producers, in such a way that economic and political power are combined with one another and the distinction between these two spheres is rendered meaningless, being a characteristic of capitalist society only.

Parenti is not a political theorist, nor, for that matter, a very good historian.

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't think he is quite excusing the behavior of socialist countries because of external factors. He is saying that a lot of the nations end up in a similar situation because of the external factors, they end up sieged and then fall to corruption.

Have you even read Parenti's work on the subject, or at least read Blackshirts and Reds where he outlines his points? There is a whole chapter where he totally skewers the inconsistencies, the wrongful deaths, the corruption that plagued those states in sieged situation.

It's similar to how during the French Revolution the country was sieged by the monarchs surrounding it, fell to the Reign of Terror and then eventually succumbed to Bonapartist rule. But that doesn't negate the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the positive things, or what they were trying to set up or what it represented (as a progressive state in the historical development of mankind; a step away from monarchical rule).

Just like no liberal democrat would totally disown those revolutions even with their faults or totally denounce bourgeois rule, Parenti is not totally throwing the ML states into the trash bin of history.

[Rusty Shackleford]

many of my comrades talk about this book and i feel i must read it now :D

its a pretty solid way of looking at it. I mean really, socialism, when a global minority(i guess you could say) is going to always be besieged. Churchills famous line was uttered and thus began the norm of any socialist nation facing capitalist subterfuge, subversion, overt attacks, sanctions, blockades and so on.

It is true, the soviet union wound up becoming militarized. it was the only way to defend the revolution. It had been attacked 2 times in a little over 20 years. because of this, things did not work out as planned, things became corrupted. it is not a flaw in the theory of marxism leninism, its the reality of imperialism versus socialism. if socialism doesnt soon dominate then it is very likely that it may crumble under the weight of imperialism.


i gotsta read that book.



It looks like Parenti has read Marx and understands socialism is born out of the womb of advanced capitalist nations.(sarcasm)


so the soviet union, china, cuba, and so on were not socialist or trying to build socialism because they all werent former capitalist superpowers?

[B0LSHEVIK]

Lately I've been really fascinated by the concept of siege socialism laid out in Michael Parenti's book Blackshirts and Reds. I think it does a lot to dispel the myths surrounding the former socialist blocs and other socialist nations. But is it really a workable theory to explain the state of ML States.

From what I gathered from it, there is a big difference between socialist nations and third world nations in the periphery of global capitalism.

Nations like the USSR, Cuba, NK, etc. were all sieged, invaded, sabotaged and economically strangled. What became of them was due to the mass 'militarization' (don't have another word for it) of their governments and this led to bureaucratization and internal corruption.

That is different from the third world nations like Haiti and the Dominican Republic which have their resources extracted by nations at the center of global capitalism.

I explained all of this to my brother who debated with me about what the legacy of Ireland would've been had it too become a Socialist Republic in the early start of the last century.

I told him that, from a bourgeois persoective, yes Ireland would've been better off without socialism.

But that would only be because it would've been spared from economic blockade, invasion, terror and sabotage from the imperial center nations, had it become a Socialist Republic.

It probably would've ended up like Cuba (not that Cuba is all that bad anyways), for it would have not known one day of peace.

Besides, even with all the praise for new Ireland after the new millennium, most of Ireland's gains came from speculative gains in finance during the 90s which allowed for them to develop. It wasn't a lasting thing but a boom that they played to their advantage. Now they're broke and will probably feel the brunt of austerity.

What's everyone else's opinion of Parenti's analysis?

Are there any other books that address the subject?

I agree with your analysis.

But I'll add one more thing. All the countries you listed, were born into a civil war and had to fight to merely survive. This 'militarization' didnt only affect only the military, but society and politics too. Its hard to wind down from military organization, to civilian activism when you just experienced a civil war. Just saying is all.

I wasnt even aware that Ireland was considered a failure!!! WTF!!! Really, I didnt. I thought it had done well. Considering its a small island with not much resources of its own in a not too hospitable environment. In comparison to the failed capitalist nations of Haiti or Belize; whom are rich in fertile land and a tropical climate, which can hurt too i guess.

[Kiev Communard]

Uh, this hardly strikes me as a brilliant concept or theoretical innovation. It is basically a way of saying that countries such as Cuba were/are socialist whilst still being able to avoid the claim that all of the forms of economic and political oppression that were exhibited by those countries (or which are claimed to have been present in the countries) are lies and have been made up - it's a pretty standard Stalinist argument, or an argument that lets Stalinists appear something other than totally idiotic by not forcing them to argue that everything bad that has ever been said about societies like Cuba is a lie and part of a vast conspiracy, and it goes like this: "yes, there were mistakes made, but, those mistakes were mainly the result of external factors, and they don't detract from those countries being fundamentally socialist". Its flaw lies in the fact that it reduces socialism to something like a nationalized economy and the provision of public welfare (neither of which are distinctly socialist, because they have all existed at various times and in various forms in societies that everyone accepts to be capitalist) and makes it possible, logically speaking, for a socialist society to embody a highly oppressive and undemocratic political state, rather than acknowledging that socialism is necessarily based around the reintegration of the economic and the political, through the rule of the associated producers, in such a way that economic and political power are combined with one another and the distinction between these two spheres is rendered meaningless, being a characteristic of capitalist society only.

Parenti is not a political theorist, nor, for that matter, a very good historian.

Yes, the claim that it is somehow possible to have "socialism" while being ruled by the minority bureucratic class totally controlling the political life is rather asinine. One could make "siege socialism" argument when concerning the Russian Revolution up to 1921 (even then it would be wrong to characterise Russian society of "war communism" years as "socialist"), but not with regard to quite developed countries of Eastern Bloc of 1950s - 1980s.

[Amphictyonis]

many of my comrades talk about this book and i feel i must read it now :D

its a pretty solid way of looking at it. I mean really, socialism, when a global minority(i guess you could say) is going to always be besieged. Churchills famous line was uttered and thus began the norm of any socialist nation facing capitalist subterfuge, subversion, overt attacks, sanctions, blockades and so on.

It is true, the soviet union wound up becoming militarized. it was the only way to defend the revolution. It had been attacked 2 times in a little over 20 years. because of this, things did not work out as planned, things became corrupted. it is not a flaw in the theory of marxism leninism, its the reality of imperialism versus socialism. if socialism doesnt soon dominate then it is very likely that it may crumble under the weight of imperialism.


i gotsta read that book.





so the soviet union, china, cuba, and so on were not socialist or trying to build socialism because they all werent former capitalist superpowers?
Superpowers? No. Non advanced industrial regions? Yes. Why do you think China never turned into an advanced communist region/'nation'? Why do you think all of the above never advanced to communism let alone socialism? Mao was following Stalin's "socialism in one country" bullshit and, well, so was Stalin ;)

The only way non advanced capitalist regions could morph into communism (Marx thought) was if the advanced capitalist nations also turned to socialism. China now (after advancing the means of production under capitalism) has the potential for an actual socialist revolution- in fact, I think it's the best chance we have.

I'm no fan of "Anti-revisionists" (Stalinists) yeah me boo them. I'm not saying Parenti is a Stalinist he's just sounding like one if he thinks socialism can arise in backward nations. Viva la internationalism!

[Rusty Shackleford]

Superpowers? No. Non advanced industrial regions? Yes. Why do you think China never turned into an advanced communist region/'nation'? Why do you think all of the above never advanced to communism let alone socialism? Mao was following Stalin's "socialism in one country" bullshit and, well, so was Stalin ;)

The only way non advanced capitalist regions could morph into communism (Marx thought) was if the advanced capitalist nations also turned to socialism. China now (after advancing the means of production under capitalism) has the potential for an actual socialist revolution- in fact, I think it's the best chance we have.

I'm no fan of "Anti-revisionists" (Stalinists) yeah me boo them. I'm not saying Parenti is a Stalinist he's just sounding like one if he thinks socialism can arise in backward nations. Viva la internationalism!


of course it wasnt successful in the soviet union because of the lack of capitalist development prior to the revolution. The fact that they were invaded twice and caught up in a massive military build up sure did a hell of a lot to retard socialist development as well.

As for china, i agree that the massive accumulation of capital has brought a new opportunity for the working class but it does not negate the triumphs of the '49 revolution, nor does the collapse of the soviet union negate the triumphs of 1917. Even up until the collapse, the USSR was more worker friendly than the west. social programs, health care, housing and all that were still provided. it sure wasnt the full potential, but it was something.

Also, lenin himself and the CPSU agreed to implement minor capitalist reforms to make up for the lack of actual existing capitalism in russia(NEP). Of course they didnt go off the deep end like Deng did.

the "backward" nations having revolutions arent always immediately for communism. The CPC used to be a part of the Kuomintang under the leadership of Sun Yat Sen. They were nationalists. even after the slaughter of '27, the march, the infighting, they CPC and the KMT still worked together on occasion.

the "backward" nations are predominantly fighting for sovereignty. These nations sovereignty are violated by imperialism, so a natural response is also socialist construction.

The soviets were also well aware that socialism would be fully realized unless the west had socialist revolutions as well. Its not like leninists or "stalinists" are just waltzing around pretending to be socialists.

[Amphictyonis]

http://www.dailybattle.pair.com/parenti_critique.shtml

Don't shoot the messenger :)

Also, I just lost a lot of respect for the guy-


But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage. He actually thinks Russia was communist, secondly he actually thinks communism isn't about worker control of the means of production. There's so much to say here....where do I start?

[Amphictyonis]

of course it wasnt successful in the soviet union because of the lack of capitalist development prior to the revolution.
Same goes for everywhere else.



As for china, i agree that the massive accumulation of capital has brought a new opportunity for the working class but it does not negate the triumphs of the '49 revolution
A triumphant revolution is the establishment of socialism/communism. I'd say past 'revolutions' failed. We as communists should be in the business of (objectivly) asking why. We can't do that while prasing failed attempts to build socialism in isolated backwards nations. :)


Also, lenin himself and the CPSU agreed to implement minor capitalist reforms to make up for the lack of actual existing capitalism in russia(NEP). I know it sounds weird but in my opinion, after seeing revolution wasn't happening in the advanced capitalist nations they shouldve held their noses and given into capitalism as happened in Russia almost a century later. I don't fault Lenin for not having a crystal ball but I do think there was some impatience there. The pre conditions for socialism simply didn't exist in Russia and capitalism's productive forces were expanding at an alarming rate. Lenin mistakenly thought imperialism was a sign that the market would be entering what Marx said would be the inevitable decline of capitalism which would make ripe conditions for successful global revolution.


the "backward" nations having revolutions arent always immediately for communism.
But have been given the 'communist' title and the results blamed on communism when in reality it is capitalism which develops the means of production in these backwards nations or at the least a distorted (quasi socialist) state capitalist system.



the "backward" nations are predominantly fighting for sovereignty. These nations sovereignty are violated by imperialism, so a natural response is also socialist construction.
Where did Marx say socialism was meant to develop the means of production? Or can you clarify what socialist construction means.


The soviets were also well aware that socialism would be fully realized unless the west had socialist revolutions as well. Its not like "stalinists" are just waltzing around pretending to be socialists.

Yes Lenin was aware but Stalin?


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

I'm sure we can both agree then the reason socialism/advanced communism didn't form was precisely because the advanced capitalist nations didn't go socialist?