Waiting for capitalism to bring about socialism?

[Sixiang]

I just watched a speech that Hugo Chavez gave on socialism and how it is applied to Venezuela as of lately. At one point he criticized Marx for the idea that socialism can only be brought about when capitalism already exists. Chavez disregarded this because he basically said that the third world shouldn't have to wait. This got me wondering: are we really supposed to wait until capitalism has sort of "reached its limit" for socialism to happen? If the people are ready for and want socialism now, why must they wait? And if this is so, then wouldn't that mean that the revolutions of China, Cuba, and Russia were all against Marxist thought? Why must people under feudalism wait for capitalism first? It seems like we should try to end oppression as soon as we possibly can. Why must we wait decades or centuries to end oppression?

Thanks for any responses. I always love learning from revleft.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Marx has a point: if the country is already industrialised (i.e. gone through the historic stages of capitalism), the workers will find it easier to utilise the new found wealth of machinery (now under democratic control) to get through the difficult stages of the revolution. However, there have been cases of socialism in largely agricultural communities which saw technology expand so I am not completely hostile to the idea, merely cautious. If the working class is ready for revolution, then go for it, I say.

[chegitz guevara]

Marx's point is that socialism can only exist in a world of universal abundance. If we establish universal poverty, then class society will re-form.

[Amphictyonis]

Grab your sectarian sword and shield then jump into the mix


http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-revisionismi-t144483/index3.html

[Sixiang]

Grab your sectarian sword and shield then jump into the mix


http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-revisionismi-t144483/index3.html

God that is dense. I don't have time to read all of that sectarian arguing. Can I get the sparknotes version of that thread?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't revisionism just when someone alters Marxism in a negative way, thus revising it to contradict some other part of it?

[ckaihatsu]

Trotsky put forward his conception of 'permanent revolution' as an explanation of how socialist revolutions could occur in societies that had not achieved advanced capitalism. Part of his theory is the impossibility of 'socialism in one country' - a view also held by Marx, but not integrated into his conception of permanent revolution. Trotsky's theory also argues, first, that the bourgeoisie in late-developing capitalist countries are incapable of developing the productive forces in such a manner as to achieve the sort of advanced capitalism which will fully develop an industrial proletariat. Second, that the proletariat can and must, therefore, seize social, economic and political power, leading an alliance with the peasantry.

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

[Zanthorus]

Marx's theory is not a unilinear theory of history whereby socialism has to be preceeded by capitalism. In their writings on the Russian village commune for example, he and Engels hypothesised that it would be possible for Russia to bypass the capitalist stage of development in tandem with a revolution by the European working-class.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't revisionism just when someone alters Marxism in a negative way, thus revising it to contradict some other part of it?

Revisionism does involve some occasionally sophisticated theoretical arguments to prove how one or another aspect of Marxism is redundant or outdated, but certain theoretical alterations of Marxism are not limited to those described as 'revisionists'. The key feature of revisionism is the rejection of the principle of the political independence of the working-class and proposals to take part in governmental coalitions with other 'progressive' parties, usually liberal and democratic bourgeois parties, in order to defend various 'progressive' social policies or to defend 'democracy' against 'reactionaries'. This is the feature that united Eduard Bernstein, Jean Jaurès, Alexandre Millerand and Ramsay Macdonald among others against the revolutionary Marxists of the Second International.

[Sixiang]

*permanent revolution*
So, is stagism then revisionist because Marx and Engels themselves did advocate permanent revolution? Is Stalinism revisionist then?

Ugh, this is confusing. I don't know where to stand on the issue. I just read the permanent revolution page and the socialism in one country page. It's hard to pick a side that I agree with. I guess I agree with both of them to some degree. I feel like, if the proletariat in one region is ready for socialism, then they should, by all means, defeat capitalism and bring about socialism as soon as they can. But just because they do that, they shouldn't ignore the rest of the world's proletariat struggles. I feel like they should try to help out the proletariat around the world in their struggle to defeat capitalism. I don't like the idea of the proletariat having to wait around for the rest of the world to catch up, but I also don't like the idea of this sort of nationalism in which this one country only cares about its own problems and thinks it's so great because they're socialist and the rest of the world isn't.


Marx's theory is not a unilinear theory of history whereby socialism has to be preceeded by capitalism. In their writings on the Russian village commune for example, he and Engels hypothesised that it would be possible for Russia to bypass the capitalist stage of development in tandem with a revolution by the European working-class.



Revisionism does involve some occasionally sophisticated theoretical arguments to prove how one or another aspect of Marxism is redundant or outdated, but certain theoretical alterations of Marxism are not limited to those described as 'revisionists'. The key feature of revisionism is the rejection of the principle of the political independence of the working-class and proposals to take part in governmental coalitions with other 'progressive' parties, usually liberal and democratic bourgeois parties, in order to defend various 'progressive' social policies or to defend 'democracy' against 'reactionaries'. This is the feature that united Eduard Bernstein, Jean Jaurès, Alexandre Millerand and Ramsay Macdonald among others against the revolutionary Marxists of the Second International.
Okay, so a socialist revolution can happen without first having to deal with capitalism.

Wait, I'm a little confused by that bold part. Are you saying that the revisionists supported working with progressives, liberals, and social democrats? I'm pretty sure I'm not interested in that and that I support revolutionary communism.

All of this is very confusing and deep stuff. Bare with me. I'm still learning.

What about that state capitalism thing? So let's say one country has a socialist revolution. The proletariat seize control of the means of production. Hurray. Now the state is working in the hands of the proletariat and as an arm of the proletariat. That's all good. Then, the proletariat in that country tries to help out the efforts of the proletariat in other countries. So let's say then that there are several different state capitalist countries all working together to bring about socialism. Eventually more come and that makes it easier for this big group to try to bring about socialism and to help out the proletariat in countries that are heavily antagonistic to socialism and are heavily bourgeois. That seems not so bad.

Which brings me to my next problem: what about those countries in which the proletariat is duped into being reactionary and antagonistic to socialism? Basically, I'm talking about the heavily bourgeois influenced western industrial nations like the USA. The proletariat in these countries don't seem to thrilled with socialism. So then what do we do with them?

[Black Sheep]

I thought revisionism was to ... revise and change old, solid, substantial theory and practice, proven to be objectively true and best (the theory and practice,not revisionism).

[Luís Henrique]

Third world countries are capitalist.

Luís Henrique

[Rjevan]

are we really supposed to wait until capitalism has sort of "reached its limit" for socialism to happen? If the people are ready for and want socialism now, why must they wait? And if this is so, then wouldn't that mean that the revolutions of China, Cuba, and Russia were all against Marxist thought? Why must people under feudalism wait for capitalism first? It seems like we should try to end oppression as soon as we possibly can.
Indeed. Rejecting communist movements in underdeveloped countries because "they are superflous anyway because capitalism has to be fully developed first" would be no help for nobody except the bourgeoisie. Marx wrote that capitalism "needs to reach its limits", as you say, under the impression of pre-monopoly capitalism. Here is an excerpt from a German article on this topic:


From this we can conclude that the victory of socialism in less developed countries was not possible under the conditions of pre-monopoly capitalism: capitalism was definitely in a position to develop the productive forces even further and thus promote the process even further which on the one hand left the mass of the population without property, but on the other hand created the conditions so that not only deficiency will be socialised in the transition to communism. However, this has changed dramatically with the transition of capitalism into its imperialist stage: a less developed country today has little chances anymore to develop on the basis of a 'normal' capitalist development of the productive forces, but it inevitably falls under the domination of imperialism which bleeds it white while at the same time preventing the independent national development of the productive forces.
[...]
In other words: under today's imperialist conditions on a global scale, a backward country does not have to go through capitalist development first to leave the mass of the population without property, thereby creating a revolutionary force, like Marx said; instead, a proletarian revolution can break out without this condition being met. The result is a proletarian power faced with underdeveloped productive forces, which therefore lacks the conditions to proceed towards communism. It has to create these conditions, these productive forces on its own.

To achieve this it might be necessary to "take one step backward to later take two steps forward", as Lenin said about the New Economic Policy (NEP).


I feel like, if the proletariat in one region is ready for socialism, then they should, by all means, defeat capitalism and bring about socialism as soon as they can. But just because they do that, they shouldn't ignore the rest of the world's proletariat struggles. I feel like they should try to help out the proletariat around the world in their struggle to defeat capitalism.
That is exactly what socialism in one country is about. It does in no way mean embracing nationalism and isolationism. Have a look at the quotes in this post: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1640136&postcount=7


Are you saying that the revisionists supported working with progressives, liberals, and social democrats?
Yes, particularly reformists (most famous is Bernstein) advocate that revolution is unnecessary or impossible and that capitalism can be changed gradually from within by means of participation in government and reforms. Which effectively means denying the Marxist theory of class struggle.

And that is what revisionism is generallly about (reformism is just one of its many forms), allegedly "developing" Marxist theory but in a way which goes against its very core principles like proletarian internationalism, class struggle and the irreconcilabe interests of exploiters and exploited, the need for revolution, its scientific world view, etc.


Which brings me to my next problem: what about those countries in which the proletariat is duped into being reactionary and antagonistic to socialism? Basically, I'm talking about the heavily bourgeois influenced western industrial nations like the USA. The proletariat in these countries don't seem to thrilled with socialism.
This is why progressive and class conscuious elements need to organise themselves into the vanguard of the working class, become the spearhead of its struggle and give its very best to raise the level of class consciousness of the proletariat. There will always be considerable reactionary influence on the working class under capitalism but as the crisis of capitalism becomes more and more obvious and class struggle intensifies the workers will become more and more radical and class conscious:


Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01d.htm

[ckaihatsu]

So, is stagism then revisionist because Marx and Engels themselves did advocate permanent revolution? Is Stalinism revisionist then?


In my understanding revisionism can only be defined in terms of the backsliding collective statist bureaucracy that was the USSR -- it is *specific* to that historical situation. Stalinism was the "backsliding" (bureaucratic collectivism) from the initial 1917 Russian Revolution, and revisionism is the further "backsliding" from statism to the larger world market economy and bourgeois nation-state world order.





Ugh, this is confusing. I don't know where to stand on the issue. I just read the permanent revolution page and the socialism in one country page. It's hard to pick a side that I agree with. I guess I agree with both of them to some degree. I feel like, if the proletariat in one region is ready for socialism, then they should, by all means, defeat capitalism and bring about socialism as soon as they can. But just because they do that, they shouldn't ignore the rest of the world's proletariat struggles. I feel like they should try to help out the proletariat around the world in their struggle to defeat capitalism. I don't like the idea of the proletariat having to wait around for the rest of the world to catch up, but I also don't like the idea of this sort of nationalism in which this one country only cares about its own problems and thinks it's so great because they're socialist and the rest of the world isn't.




What about that state capitalism thing? So let's say one country has a socialist revolution. The proletariat seize control of the means of production. Hurray. Now the state is working in the hands of the proletariat and as an arm of the proletariat. That's all good. Then, the proletariat in that country tries to help out the efforts of the proletariat in other countries. So let's say then that there are several different state capitalist countries all working together to bring about socialism. Eventually more come and that makes it easier for this big group to try to bring about socialism and to help out the proletariat in countries that are heavily antagonistic to socialism and are heavily bourgeois. That seems not so bad.


If it's of any relief, your thought experiment is very abstract and contrived -- in reality there would be far more dynamism and interconnections among various continental regions in upheaval and ongoing struggle. Currently (c. 2005-onward) we're seeing a period of decidedly increased workers' struggles, in fits and starts all over the world, due to the faltering of the U.S. empire and its inability to easily prevail with an imperialist-militarist regime as a substitute for objectively worsening economic conditions.

The only reason why Stalinism even existed *at all* is because the proletariat could not overcome the resistance from the allied bourgeois-imperialist forces -- world war prevailed instead of revolution and thus became the basis for the geopolitical order of the 20th century, one that required a statist (Stalinist) order of some sort to "represent" Russia -- the USSR.





Which brings me to my next problem: what about those countries in which the proletariat is duped into being reactionary and antagonistic to socialism? Basically, I'm talking about the heavily bourgeois influenced western industrial nations like the USA. The proletariat in these countries don't seem to thrilled with socialism. So then what do we do with them?


It's better to look at these dynamics in a materialist-historical kind of way, rather than in a mass-marketing-research kind of way. It's not so much that as capitalism enters a profound crisis a mass survey goes out to each person on the planet for a mass "vote" -- it's more that human society reaches the point where the world's bourgeoisie, no matter how solidarized and militarily powerful, *cannot* reconcile their business-as-usual economic framework to the actual realities of overproduction, stagnant or falling profits, social unrest, etc. Their "world order" of existing social relations for the sake of private accumulation and forward momentum irretrievably breaks down and the rest of the world -- workers, that is -- must develop some new basis on their own for stepping into the breach to keep the world turning, but not on the basis of capitalism anymore.

We know that in a globalized world no corner of it continues on its own, hidden from the rest -- major events in any part of the world *will* have a ripple effect everywhere else. The deciding factor, now as then, will be whether the workers of the world will be able to fulfill their needed revolutionary role and bring about a new kind of productive relations to enable the furthering of humanity and civilization on an improved, post-capitalist basis. Workers *themselves* will have to be ready to *explicitly* decide what they *would* be "thrilled" with....

[Amphictyonis]

So, is stagism then revisionist because Marx and Engels themselves did advocate permanent revolution? Is Stalinism revisionist then?



The parts of the thread I posted that apply to this topic have nothing to do with revisionism (although I do argue Stalin was a revisionist with his socialism in one country mess).

[Sixiang]

That is exactly what socialism in one country is about. It does in no way mean embracing nationalism and isolationism. Have a look at the quotes in this post: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1640136&postcount=7
Thank you so much for these quotes and this information. I jumped to the wrong conclusion about socialism in one country.



This is why progressive and class conscuious elements need to organise themselves into the vanguard of the working class, become the spearhead of its struggle and give its very best to raise the level of class consciousness of the proletariat. There will always be considerable reactionary influence on the working class under capitalism but as the crisis of capitalism becomes more and more obvious and class struggle intensifies the workers will become more and more radical and class conscious:
Interesting. Thanks for that information as well.



If it's of any relief, your thought experiment is very abstract and contrived -- in reality there would be far more dynamism and interconnections among various continental regions in upheaval and ongoing struggle. Currently (c. 2005-onward) we're seeing a period of decidedly increased workers' struggles, in fits and starts all over the world, due to the faltering of the U.S. empire and its inability to easily prevail with an imperialist-militarist regime as a substitute for objectively worsening economic conditions.

The only reason why Stalinism even existed *at all* is because the proletariat could not overcome the resistance from the allied bourgeois-imperialist forces -- world war prevailed instead of revolution and thus became the basis for the geopolitical order of the 20th century, one that required a statist (Stalinist) order of some sort to "represent" Russia -- the USSR.





It's better to look at these dynamics in a materialist-historical kind of way, rather than in a mass-marketing-research kind of way. It's not so much that as capitalism enters a profound crisis a mass survey goes out to each person on the planet for a mass "vote" -- it's more that human society reaches the point where the world's bourgeoisie, no matter how solidarized and militarily powerful, *cannot* reconcile their business-as-usual economic framework to the actual realities of overproduction, stagnant or falling profits, social unrest, etc. Their "world order" of existing social relations for the sake of private accumulation and forward momentum irretrievably breaks down and the rest of the world -- workers, that is -- must develop some new basis on their own for stepping into the breach to keep the world turning, but not on the basis of capitalism anymore.

We know that in a globalized world no corner of it continues on its own, hidden from the rest -- major events in any part of the world *will* have a ripple effect everywhere else. The deciding factor, now as then, will be whether the workers of the world will be able to fulfill their needed revolutionary role and bring about a new kind of productive relations to enable the furthering of humanity and civilization on an improved, post-capitalist basis. Workers *themselves* will have to be ready to *explicitly* decide what they *would* be "thrilled" with....
Interesting. Sound reasonable. Thank you.

[Zanthorus]

Are you saying that the revisionists supported working with progressives, liberals, and social democrats? I'm pretty sure I'm not interested in that and that I support revolutionary communism.

During the period after the collapse of the International Workingmen's Association (First International) but before the First World War, organisations sprang up across Europe calling themselves 'Social-Democratic' parties, which had revolutionary Marxist programmes. At that time a 'Social-Democrat' was a Communist. Concretely, the theory of the revisionists meant the formation of electoral coalitions with the liberal parties. For example, in England the Labour party ran alongside the Liberals in every election from 1900-1914. One exception to this rule, and one of the examples which caused the most controversy in the Socialist International, was the participation of Alexendre Millerand in Waldeck-Rousseau's 'Cabinet of Republican Defence' alongside the butcher of the Paris Commune General Gallifet, a participation which was defended by Jean Jaurès. The electoral coalition part should probably stressed. It wasn't just working alongside 'progressives' and such for specific goals that was regarded as revisionism, it was forming electoral alliances with them and taking up cabinet positions in governments which were committed to the defence of capitalist property relations.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Chavez was being politically expedient. He's not going to say to the left-orientated workers of the third-world nation, of which he is President, that Socialism cannot be brought about until they've had their dose of Capitalism and its associated poverty, misery and inequality, when his platform is based entirely on Socialism.

Also, Chavez is not a Marxist. Not an orthodox one, anyway.

[Thirsty Crow]

Thank you so much for these quotes and this information. I jumped to the wrong conclusion about socialism in one country.

However, these quotes are completely useless if one were to understand something more than "what Lenin believed".
As a matter of fact, Stalin indeed engaged in an expedient revisionism of the Marxist understanding of separate socioeconomic formations - capitalism and socialism/communism, making the former (socialism) a stable, intermediary formation. Hence the idiocy of some theoretical constructs such as "non-antagonistic classes".

Concretely, SIOC functioned as an ideological justification of certain concrete practices concerning the organization of production and the organization of political power (power of decision making).

Of course, it would be illusory to expect that revolution would occur simultaneously in a hostof countries. But that is not the point. The point is whether social relations of production, confounded to one country alone, may be significantly altered in order that we may conclude that classes (meaning: opposing groups with regard to their position within the process of production) have been abolished. And the answer should be an emphatic "no".

[Sixiang]

Of course, it would be illusory to expect that revolution would occur simultaneously in a hostof countries. But that is not the point. The point is whether social relations of production, confounded to one country alone, may be significantly altered in order that we may conclude that classes (meaning: opposing groups with regard to their position within the process of production) have been abolished. And the answer should be an emphatic "no".
So does that mean that classlessness can only happen when the whole world is socialist first? That seems rather evident. A lot of things will have to happen first, and I'm sure that they will happen at different rates in different parts of the world.

[Thirsty Crow]

So does that mean that classlessness can only happen when the whole world is socialist first? That seems rather evident. A lot of things will have to happen first, and I'm sure that they will happen at different rates in different parts of the world.
Yes, to all of your points - yes.
But the point of SIOC is to claim that social relations can be significantly altered to the extent that one can conclude there are no antagonistic classes - in one country.
Needless to say - this is an ideological mystification.

[Manic Impressive]

I'm a little confused by Chavez's comment, I can only think of a couple of countries that might still operate in a feudal system. Venezuela certainly isn't one of them, AFAIK it has a large urban working class. Personally I think the peasantry as Marx described them is an obsolete class in all but a very few countries, what we have now is an urban proletariat and a rural proletariat.

[Sixiang]

I'm a little confused by Chavez's comment, I can only think of a couple of countries that might still operate in a feudal system. Venezuela certainly isn't one of them, AFAIK it has a large urban working class. Personally I think the peasantry as Marx described them is an obsolete class in all but a very few countries, what we have now is an urban proletariat and a rural proletariat.

I think that he probably meant that he didn't want Latin American countries to have to become like the USA first. He was probably associating it with the idea of American imperialism.