Why were/are the 20th century Communist experiments grotesque failures?

[Deicide]

Why have the 20th century Communist experiments turned out to be grotesque failures? And how can we, as 21st century leftists, avoid spawning similar failures in the future?

The title I have chosen may infuriate some of you but, it's a question that needs to be asked.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Much of it has to do with the material conditions in those nations. The means of production in order to create a large enough surplus to maintain the people weren't there to start with and needed to be developed, rather than simply seized.

That is one of the reasons. Maybe someone can elaborate more on this.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why have the 20th century Communist experiments turned out to be grotesque failures? And how can we, as 21st century leftists, avoid spawning similar failures in the future?

The title I have chosen may infuriate some of you but, it's a question that needs to be asked.

Because a worker's revolution won but worker's power wasn't achieved. The remaining so-called socialist state kept the cache and language of the revolution despite the total lack of worker's power and, additionally, while not socialist it offered an alternative development model for countries trying to develop out from under the dominance of stronger imperialist nations and so basically a lot of nationalist revolutions and resulting governments.

We can avoid this by rebuilding the organic connection of revolutionary politics with working class struggles - helping our class learn how to fight for their own interests.

[RedAtheist]

Much of it has to do with the material conditions in those nations. The means of production in order to create a large enough surplus to maintain the people weren't there to start with and needed to be developed, rather than simply seized.

That is one of the reasons. Maybe someone can elaborate more on this.

Not only was there not enough wealth in these societies, but they also lacked a well developed proletariat. To bring about socialism we not only need wealth. We need a class that can reorganise society and the economy on a democratic basis.

While I have nothing against the peasants of Russia (for instance) their role in the technologically backwards economy of their country was to compete for profits, not to produce things cooperatively, the way the proletariat does. If a revolution occurred in a country where the majority of people already cooperated in their labour, I think it would be more successful.

[daft punk]

Yeah, the revolution in Russia went downhill because it was isolated in a backward country. After the civil war there was a famine. The bolsheviks had had to have forced requisitioning of grain in the civil war to feed the soldiers and urban workers. After the civil war they took a step back and allowed a free market for the peasants. Lenin died and Stalin got enough support to win power. He allowed this privatistion to get out of hand and consequently found himself facing a major challenge from the rich peasants. Events forced him to collectivise.

Most other 'communist' countries never even attempted communism. Mao wanted 'several decades' of capitalism in China. It was capitalism that failed and turned into a Stalinist dictatorship. Mao was forced to collectivise because the Korean war increased the resistance of the gentry in China and perhaps because he feared China would be next. Anyway he quickly had to change his plans.

Similar scenario in the eastern European countries and so on.

By the mid 1930s Stalin was an anti-socialist, so socialism didnt have much chance after that.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Are we not basically debating the same issues in multiple other threads?

[Comrade Auldnik]

Who says they were all "grotesque failures"? Some of us are of the opinion that the pre-Khrushchevite Soviet Union and Hoxha's Albania represented the successful implementation of socialism. And, hell, I don't count those countries that have yet to achieve socialism as failures; I feel like the attempt to paint leftist parties as "tyrannical" or somehow "worse" than capitalism as bourgeois psy-op warfare.

[Threetune]

Perhaps the person who stuck up the original post would like to draw-up a balance sheet for us of what they think are “grotesque failures” as against the brilliant achievements of communist states. Then we will have a better idea of what a really ignorant right-winger we are talking to.

If not for the revolutions in Russia, China etc, there would not have been the reforms in the US and Western Europe. The fear of communist revolution got the OP the reforms now taken for granted by the western youth since World War II.

[Nuvem]

Why have the 20th century Communist experiments turned out to be grotesque failures? And how can we, as 21st century leftists, avoid spawning similar failures in the future?

The title I have chosen may infuriate some of you but, it's a question that needs to be asked.


They weren't for the most part. Read some analyses that aren't written by Western bourgeois media agents. The USSR had an excellent early Socialist economy during the 1930s-1950s before Kosygin started fucking everything up, the DDR had a stunningly good economy and standard of living, the DPRK was known as one of the best-constructed Socialist economies in the world (evidenced by the fact that it is among the only ones to survive so long past the collapse of the Socialist Bloc); most of the so-called "Eastern Bloc" countries now in majority lament the loss of their Socialist systems, even in Romania and Bulgaria where the local parties made severe errors in their planning and execution of Socialism (which was the real problem). Cuba, meanwhile, has managed to remain largely independent despite incredible hardship and yet has one of the highest standards of living in Latin America.

Consider the difficulties facing these countries which were constantly under threat of war from the Imperialist countries and which did not achieve their prosperity through the exploitation of underdeveloped countries or foreign labour, which is the keystone of economic success and development as well as the basis for a good standard of living in the West. We wouldn't be living it up here in North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, or Japan or the ROK if our governments and multinational business giants weren't raping the rest of the world for raw materials, processed goods and labour. What the Socialist countries achieved, they achieved without having to do this- so naturally some sacrifice of luxury was necessary precisely because the relationship between these countries and underdeveloped nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America was one of nurturing goodwill instead of rapacious exploitation.

The only "grotesque failures" of the Leftist movement are those ones which ignore real conditions and dogmatically seek to implement an obscure, intellectualist tendency which the masses have no interest or care for (Anarchism, Left Communism, anything with the word "post" in it). Even China wasn't a "grotesque failure"- they simply failed to plan their economic development rationally along lines determined by real national conditions and refused assistance from experienced Soviet planners when it was offered. The Southeast Asian Socialist countries, meanwhile, lacked virtually any industrial basis during their revolutions, (considering also the fact that they were bombed to ashes by US Imperialists) and so fell quickly to revisionism and now even bear signs of neo-colonialism. Some of the countries of the Eastern Bloc developed their economies rationally and effectively (DDR being the best example) and others (Poland) failed to do so due to either lack of theoretical knowledge or ideological failings: which it was I cannot yet say, as I still have a lot of reading to do about the Bloc. The African Socialist countries failed for very much the same reasons as the Southeast Asian- they lacked an industrial basis and crumbled under assaults, covert and overt, by Imperialist nations in North America and Europe.

All that being said, the DPRK and Cuba are still going strong (one stronger than the other) and holding on to their Socialist base. Meanwhile, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the Communist Party of China could take a hard left turn and initiate economic reforms along Socialist lines, something that hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens are calling for and which could cripple US Imperialism by cutting it off from it's #1 trading partner and all of its Chinese-based industry. Were this to happen, the Southeast Asian countries would likely receive the assistance they need from China, now largely industrialized, and probably follow suit- and one can only imagine the impact that such a thing would have in Eastern Europe, particularly Russia where the majority remain Communist. Quite frankly, we're just getting started.

[CommunityBeliever]

I support the communist bloc of the 1950's when the USSR and the PRC were on friendly terms. The USSR and PRC cooperated to defeat the Western imperialists in North Korea. However, the big thing that went wrong that was the Sino-Soviet split which got worse over time.

It there is ever going to be a communist world, we have to focus on fighting the capitalists and not one another. United we stand. Divided we fall. Capitalism will destroy us all.

[Zulu]

I support the communist bloc of the 1950's when the USSR and the PRC were on friendly terms. The USSR and PRC cooperated to defeat the Western imperialists in North Korea. However, the big thing that went wrong that was the Sino-Soviet split which got worse over time.

It there is ever going to be a communist world, we have to focus on fighting the capitalists and not one another. United we stand. Divided we fall. Capitalism will destroy us all.

Yeah, capitalism could have already collapsed if it wasn't for the Sino-Soviet split.

[Comrade Auldnik]

I support the communist bloc of the 1950's when the USSR and the PRC were on friendly terms. The USSR and PRC cooperated to defeat the Western imperialists in North Korea. However, the big thing that went wrong that was the Sino-Soviet split which got worse over time.

It there is ever going to be a communist world, we have to focus on fighting the capitalists and not one another. United we stand. Divided we fall. Capitalism will destroy us all.

The trouble comes in the problem of unity-criticism-unity, as Mao would've described it. We need to balance cooperation against preventing subversive and anti-communist elements from infiltrating our ideology.

[CommunityBeliever]

Yeah, capitalism could have already collapsed if it wasn't for the Sino-Soviet split. I don't know if capitalism would've collapsed yet, but I think there wouldn't be anyone calling the 20th century communist countries "grotesque failures" today if hadn't been for infighting.


The trouble comes in the problem of unity-criticism-unity, as Mao would've described it. We need to balance cooperation against preventing subversive and anti-communist elements from infiltrating our ideology. I agree with that point. Then in a sense, the real problem was the subversive elements which made the split necessary.

[Firebrand]

I reckon it all went wrong because the world wasn't ready. Communism cannot exist in one country, to get to communism you must go through capitalism. To this day not all countries have got to a sufficient level of development, and back then developed capitalist economies were in a tiny minority.
While the peasantry still form a substantial part of the worlds population the world revolution cannot take hold.
However not all countries must be capitalist for communism to work. Just the majority. The key point is that the majority of the worlds population must be waged labourers used to working with each other. This is not yet the case and certainly wasn't the case back when the socialist experiments of the 20th centuary were taking place.
The main problem we face is uneven development, while the UK for example has been ready for a revolution for years, india for example is only just reaching that point. Because of this while the working classes in the uk have been in a position to take power their living conditions in contrast to the rest of the world have been so much better that the necessary rage to spark the revolution has not been present.

[Comrade Auldnik]

I agree with that point. Then in a sense, the real problem was the subversive elements which made the split necessary.

But then, perhaps, here is where the infighting occurs. As a Stalinist, I view Trotskyism as being anti-communistic and subversive, but I have no doubt in my mind that a Trotskyite would say the same thing about Stalinism. Leftists need to find a way to develop correct theory while at the same time remaining united and encouraging cooperation.

[Comrade Auldnik]

I reckon it all went wrong because the world wasn't ready. Communism cannot exist in one country, to get to communism you must go through capitalism. To this day not all countries have got to a sufficient level of development, and back then developed capitalist economies were in a tiny minority.
While the peasantry still form a substantial part of the worlds population the world revolution cannot take hold.
However not all countries must be capitalist for communism to work. Just the majority. The key point is that the majority of the worlds population must be waged labourers used to working with each other. This is not yet the case and certainly wasn't the case back when the socialist experiments of the 20th centuary were taking place.
The main problem we face is uneven development, while the UK for example has been ready for a revolution for years, india for example is only just reaching that point. Because of this while the working classes in the uk have been in a position to take power their living conditions in contrast to the rest of the world have been so much better that the necessary rage to spark the revolution has not been present.

Comrade, that sounds an awful lot like anti-revolutionary talk to me. I disagree that capitalist development is necessary for communism, and I have a little trouble remaining dispassionate when this issue is brought up.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Yeah, capitalism could have already collapsed if it wasn't for the Sino-Soviet split.

That is why the dogmatism of both the Soviet and Chinese sides actually hurt the Communist movement. They could have argued about who was more revisionist after they were done helping liberate the people of the world from capitalism!

[Threetune]

Soviet state organisation is all going to look like paradise in comparison with what we are about to experience in ‘the west’. Then the pampered indulged western youth will understand the real history of the world from an objective class perspective. When they, there parents and children are living at the same economic levels of the average South American, Asian and African worker.

Edit: It is happening now as you know.

[NewLeft]

They weren't for the most part. Read some analyses that aren't written by Western bourgeois media agents. The USSR had an excellent early Socialist economy during the 1930s-1950s before Kosygin started fucking everything up, the DDR had a stunningly good economy and standard of living, the DPRK was known as one of the best-constructed Socialist economies in the world (evidenced by the fact that it is among the only ones to survive so long past the collapse of the Socialist Bloc); most of the so-called "Eastern Bloc" countries now in majority lament the loss of their Socialist systems, even in Romania and Bulgaria where the local parties made severe errors in their planning and execution of Socialism (which was the real problem). Cuba, meanwhile, has managed to remain largely independent despite incredible hardship and yet has one of the highest standards of living in Latin America.

What do you mean by this?

[Firebrand]

Comrade, that sounds an awful lot like anti-revolutionary talk to me. I disagree that capitalist development is necessary for communism, and I have a little trouble remaining dispassionate when this issue is brought up.

Not anti revolutionary, just realistic. I cannot view the peasantry as a revolutionary class, the concentration of the great mass of labour in waged work is vital to the formation of the interactions that will replace capitalism. If history has told us anything it is that the peasantry cannot be considered a reliable force for the creation of communism. I'll quote Marx on the subject if you like.
We are only now starting to reach the point where sucessful revolution is possible. I believe it will happen within our lifetimes.

[CommunityBeliever]

What do you mean by this?

In the early 1950s the united communist bloc drove the Western imperialists out of North Korea. Soon thereafter the DPRK was formed as an anti-imperialist and socialist state which provided full employment, health care, housing, and safety to its entire population. As comrade Nuvem mentioned, it was one of the best constructed socialist economies at the time. Unfortunately, things went down hill when the Juche ideology emerged under political pressures from the Sino-Soviet split.

[Philosopher Jay]

Communists could not have understood the degree of insanity and barbarism that capitalists would go to preserve their ill-gotten wealth.



Why have the 20th century Communist experiments turned out to be grotesque failures? And how can we, as 21st century leftists, avoid spawning similar failures in the future?

The title I have chosen may infuriate some of you but, it's a question that needs to be asked.

[Prometeo liberado]

There were no failures of communism, ever. As soon as it gets rough we just say that it was't, isn't, could never have been a communist country. Problem solved.

[Threetune]

Leninist party revolutionary theory in Russia changed everything in the world for ever. There is nothing imperialism historically can do about it.

We have demonstrated that proletarian dictatorship is the way forward for the planet.
The OP is just ignorant.

[pluckedflowers]

There were no failures of communism, ever. As soon as it gets rough we just say that it was't, isn't, could never have been a communist country. Problem solved.

I understand the need to be self-critical and all, but I think we safely say none of these states died of an overdose of workers' control of the means of production.

[Prometeo liberado]

I understand the need to be self-critical and all, but I think we safely say none of these states died of an overdose of workers' control of the means of production.

My point proven. This has always been the path of least resistance for the left when this topic is raised.

[cb9's_unity]

They weren't for the most part. Read some analyses that aren't written by Western bourgeois media agents. The USSR had an excellent early Socialist economy during the 1930s-1950s before Kosygin started fucking everything up, the DDR had a stunningly good economy and standard of living, the DPRK was known as one of the best-constructed Socialist economies in the world (evidenced by the fact that it is among the only ones to survive so long past the collapse of the Socialist Bloc); most of the so-called "Eastern Bloc" countries now in majority lament the loss of their Socialist systems, even in Romania and Bulgaria where the local parties made severe errors in their planning and execution of Socialism (which was the real problem). Cuba, meanwhile, has managed to remain largely independent despite incredible hardship and yet has one of the highest standards of living in Latin America.

Consider the difficulties facing these countries which were constantly under threat of war from the Imperialist countries and which did not achieve their prosperity through the exploitation of underdeveloped countries or foreign labour, which is the keystone of economic success and development as well as the basis for a good standard of living in the West. We wouldn't be living it up here in North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, or Japan or the ROK if our governments and multinational business giants weren't raping the rest of the world for raw materials, processed goods and labour. What the Socialist countries achieved, they achieved without having to do this- so naturally some sacrifice of luxury was necessary precisely because the relationship between these countries and underdeveloped nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America was one of nurturing goodwill instead of rapacious exploitation.

The only "grotesque failures" of the Leftist movement are those ones which ignore real conditions and dogmatically seek to implement an obscure, intellectualist tendency which the masses have no interest or care for (Anarchism, Left Communism, anything with the word "post" in it). Even China wasn't a "grotesque failure"- they simply failed to plan their economic development rationally along lines determined by real national conditions and refused assistance from experienced Soviet planners when it was offered. The Southeast Asian Socialist countries, meanwhile, lacked virtually any industrial basis during their revolutions, (considering also the fact that they were bombed to ashes by US Imperialists) and so fell quickly to revisionism and now even bear signs of neo-colonialism. Some of the countries of the Eastern Bloc developed their economies rationally and effectively (DDR being the best example) and others (Poland) failed to do so due to either lack of theoretical knowledge or ideological failings: which it was I cannot yet say, as I still have a lot of reading to do about the Bloc. The African Socialist countries failed for very much the same reasons as the Southeast Asian- they lacked an industrial basis and crumbled under assaults, covert and overt, by Imperialist nations in North America and Europe.

All that being said, the DPRK and Cuba are still going strong (one stronger than the other) and holding on to their Socialist base. Meanwhile, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the Communist Party of China could take a hard left turn and initiate economic reforms along Socialist lines, something that hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens are calling for and which could cripple US Imperialism by cutting it off from it's #1 trading partner and all of its Chinese-based industry. Were this to happen, the Southeast Asian countries would likely receive the assistance they need from China, now largely industrialized, and probably follow suit- and one can only imagine the impact that such a thing would have in Eastern Europe, particularly Russia where the majority remain Communist. Quite frankly, we're just getting started.

So is the matter purely one of economics? The OP didn't do much to define what was meant by failure. You've taken it to mean creating a sound economic foundation. I believe there is much more to socialism than economics.

Whether you realize it or not, your whole analysis was heavily influenced by bourgeois thinking. Because capitalism exists solely to create more capital, economic production becomes central to all social criticism in capitalist nations. Objective economic measurement trumps the qualitative standard of life across the population. Surely when someone who isn't a capitalist talks about success or failure they should also consider vital things such as political freedom. How could you possibly have any sort of praise for the DPRK or even say they have a strong socialist foundation? It is clearer now than ever that democracy does not exist exist in that country, and that the people are repressed by a despotic government. Socialism has not been successful if it has let monarchy develop.

Similarly, socialism has not been successful if it has allowed capitalism to return. Socialism exists to liberate people from all exploitation, not just capitalist exploitation. A people who have been liberated from exploitation, and firmly have power in their hands, would never have allowed capitalism to return. The problem with so many so-called socialist countries is that the state started to mirror the function of the bourgeoisie, and obsess over production instead of it's duty to support the people. I recognize that this was a survival tactic, and that it is difficult to develop democracy when the capitalist world is aiming to destroy you. However, what survived was not socialism. All that remained were institutions dedicated to beating capitalism at its own game, and when they could not prove that they were doing so, the people found no reason to fight for the states defense.

Historically, socialism was something much more than an economic system. Only the confusion of contemporary political discourse has tried to rip away from socialism its democratic basis. Thus socialism must be judged foremost by the level of freedom taken by its participants. It may not be able to be objectively measured, but only capitalists try to put the complexity of human well being into a single number.

Socialism can succeed if it rededicates itself to an expansive analysis and critique of capitalism in its 21st century form. That means completely re-evaluating the real psychological connection the working class has to itself, the means of production, and the capitalist state that changes in material conditions have precipitated. It will need to stop glorifying old institutions that arose out of entirely different circumstances and perished under conditions that are fleeting. I'm not someone who thinks it was impossible for socialism to succeed in the 20th century, but one has to remember that the world was still in its honeymoon period with capitalism. As we speak capitalism is showing that its relative stability and sustained economic growth in the last half of the 20th century isn't the clear cut future of capitalism. It is inevitable that the capitalists will try to reach back into the disastrous 20th century to try and fix their current problems, if the socialists do the same the results will be equally disastrous.

[Elysian]

These experiments failed because they were based upon dictatorship rather than democracy. People felt totally suffocated.

[Jimmie Higgins]

And, hell, I don't count those countries that have yet to achieve socialism as failures; I feel like the attempt to paint leftist parties as "tyrannical" or somehow "worse" than capitalism as bourgeois psy-op warfare.The question shouldn't be are/were these countries or parties worse than the typical capitalist ones, this type of reasoning is exactly how the capitalists have been so successful in their anti-socialist propaganda. It turns a debate about who should run society into a moralist pissing contest of "well Mao killed X many" un-uh, "but Pinochet killed this many" or, "Well in Cuba there's no homelessness" nu-uh "well in the US you can make anti-government blogs" and so on.

If the question of "socialism or capitalism" is viewed like a balance sheet, then there is something inherently wrong with this question. The question of socialism vs. capitalism isn't "well on the one hand we wouldn't have to worry about rent, but on the other there's bourgeois rights" and so on. The question of socialism or capitalism is the question of who's in power in society and how do they organize that society.

[Rusty Shackleford]

one simply way to avoid failure is to avoid playing global realpolitiks with the struggle and going straight for the jugular of imperialism.


socialism in the soviet union was on the clock. kruschchev was wrong about that. capitalism will find its ways to maintain itself by collapsing into fascism or going in an out of bourgeois democracy. socialism cannot do that. socialism cannot be seen as a permanent stage of social development.

[dodger]

Why have the 20th century Communist experiments turned out to be grotesque failures? And how can we, as 21st century leftists, avoid spawning similar failures in the future?

The title I have chosen may infuriate some of you but, it's a question that needs to be asked.

Please don't take offence Deicide, when I say the grotesque failure, to use your phrase , more appropriately belongs with our own class here and others around the globe. That surely is where our 'fire' needs to be directed? In the main, I should think. What do you say?

[Zulu]

That is why the dogmatism of both the Soviet and Chinese sides actually hurt the Communist movement. They could have argued about who was more revisionist after they were done helping liberate the people of the world from capitalism!
Exactly.

[MotherCossack]

I reckon it all went wrong because the world wasn't ready. Communism cannot exist in one country, to get to communism you must go through capitalism. To this day not all countries have got to a sufficient level of development, and back then developed capitalist economies were in a tiny minority.
While the peasantry still form a substantial part of the worlds population the world revolution cannot take hold.
However not all countries must be capitalist for communism to work. Just the majority. The key point is that the majority of the worlds population must be waged labourers used to working with each other. This is not yet the case and certainly wasn't the case back when the socialist experiments of the 20th centuary were taking place.
The main problem we face is uneven development, while the UK for example has been ready for a revolution for years, india for example is only just reaching that point. Because of this while the working classes in the uk have been in a position to take power their living conditions in contrast to the rest of the world have been so much better that the necessary rage to spark the revolution has not been present.

i have always had time for this argument... that the world was not ready and that communism can not survive when incased in a harsh world riddled, nay, drenched in all things capitalist.

but you go on to explain that the reason for this is that peasants are not far enough along the evolutionary road of human civilisation to be 'cooked' and ready for revolution!

now this i think to be more than a little dodgy...[apologies dodger]
surely we should not make excuses like that for our comprehensive failure to step up to the revolutionary plate!
sounds like a cop-out along the lines of....

"its not my fault i didn't do my homework , i tried to... i phoned all my mates.... but they hadn't done it either... so i couldn't... cos i thought it dimn't matter cos they would have to do it next week.... so i might as well do then an all!!!!"



Please don't take offence Deicide, when I say the grotesque failure, to use your phrase , more appropriately belongs with our own class here and others around the globe. That surely is where our 'fire' needs to be directed? In the main, I should think. What do you say?

i believe that i am making a similar point .
why blame the peasants for our willingness to be herded like cattle around a state that has been constructed by a tiny, tiny minority [who are only taking it all because we let them], because it is easier than bothering to stop and question all the buffoonery that they feed us.

[Zulu]

So is the matter purely one of economics?

Yes.

When you get to the bottom of it, the short answer is "yes".





You've taken it to mean creating a sound economic foundation. I believe there is much more to socialism than economics.

As far as the Marxism goes, you are wrong.





Surely when someone who isn't a capitalist talks about success or failure they should also consider vital things such as political freedom.
"Political freedom" is an ideological bomb used by the capitalists against those who oppose capitalism. That's how Communism and Nazism get mixed up in the minds of the Western folks, by the way.





Socialism has not been successful if it has allowed capitalism to return.

... under the guise of "political freedom", mind you.





A people who have been liberated from exploitation, and firmly have power in their hands, would never have allowed capitalism to return.
Why not? If you are "politically free" who can prevent you from striving to get richer than your next door neighbor Joe? Without trampling on his "freedoms", of course, and all that blah-blah...





The problem with so many so-called socialist countries is that the state started to mirror the function of the bourgeoisie.
And the source of that problem was another problem, a more fundamental one, called the global market. So Khrushchev's policy of "peaceful coexistence" was, in fact, throwing in the towel, since which the time began ticking against the Socialist bloc. Mao realized that at once, tried to talk some Marxist-Leninist sense back into Khrushchev, but alas.





Historically, socialism was something much more than an economic system.
Yes, but Karl Marx rectified that.





Only the confusion of contemporary political discourse has tried to rip away from socialism its democratic basis.
No, it was Karl Marx. He said that economy was the basis of everything, while democracy and whatnot was the superstructure.





Thus socialism must be judged foremost by the level of freedom taken by its participants.
Then what's the difference of Socialism (as an ideology) from Liberalism or Libertarianism, and socialism (as economy) from capitalism?


.

[daft punk]

Who says they were all "grotesque failures"? Some of us are of the opinion that the pre-Khrushchevite Soviet Union and Hoxha's Albania represented the successful implementation of socialism. And, hell, I don't count those countries that have yet to achieve socialism as failures; I feel like the attempt to paint leftist parties as "tyrannical" or somehow "worse" than capitalism as bourgeois psy-op warfare.

Of course they were grotesque failures. Actually only Russia was, because only in Russia was socialism attempted. It was on the right path for the period 1917-23.

Stalin only collectivised in 1929 because he was forced to, not because he wanted to achieve socialism. By 1936 he was actively suppressing socialism in Russia, Spain and everywhere else. At the end of WW2 he had no intention of any countries attempting socialism, his message was Popular Fronts, Two Stage Theory. Build capitalism in coalitions with capitalists. This they tried to do in China, Eastern Europe etc, but the plan failed and nationalisation began contrary to Stalin's wishes.

Answer me this, why do you think Stalin backed the KMT instead of Mao, right up to 1948? Even Mao wanted capitalism in China, but still Stalin backed Chiang. Why?


They weren't for the most part. Read some analyses that aren't written by Western bourgeois media agents.
Read some by objective historians and/or Trotskyists.




The USSR had an excellent early Socialist economy during the 1930s-1950s before Kosygin started fucking everything up

Millions died of hunger in the 30s. Millions were killed in the purges. Stalinist policies meant the fascists taking power in Spain and Germany etc.





the DDR had a stunningly good economy and standard of living

And now it is capitalist






the DPRK was known as one of the best-constructed Socialist economies in the world (evidenced by the fact that it is among the only ones to survive so long past the collapse of the Socialist Bloc);

People are cold and hungry in that miserable shit-hole ruled by the Kim family and their military dictatorship which doesnt even pretend to be communist any more.





most of the so-called "Eastern Bloc" countries now in majority lament the loss of their Socialist systems,

They never attempted socialism, they were never socialist.



even in Romania and Bulgaria where the local parties made severe errors in their planning and execution of Socialism (which was the real problem).

At the end of WW2 the plan was for these countries to be capitalist, in line with Stalinist policy. There is no doubt about this, look it up if you don's believe me. The local leaders and Stalin both said so and they tried to be capitalist.




Cuba, meanwhile, has managed to remain largely independent despite incredible hardship and yet has one of the highest standards of living in Latin America.

Castro was not a Stalinist, but he was not a socialist either, and did not envisage Cuba being socialist as far as we can tell. His aim was simply to establish a democratic capitalist country free from foreign domination. His plan failed.

Cuba is to be defended in that it has a largely planned economy, but it is not socialist as that would require a massive extension of democracy and an end to the rule of the bureaucratic elite.




Consider the difficulties facing these countries which were constantly under threat of war from the Imperialist countries and which did not achieve their prosperity through the exploitation of underdeveloped countries or foreign labour, which is the keystone of economic success and development as well as the basis for a good standard of living in the West. We wouldn't be living it up here in North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, or Japan or the ROK if our governments and multinational business giants weren't raping the rest of the world for raw materials, processed goods and labour. What the Socialist countries achieved, they achieved without having to do this- so naturally some sacrifice of luxury was necessary precisely because the relationship between these countries and underdeveloped nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America was one of nurturing goodwill instead of rapacious exploitation.

You dont think these Stalinist states exploited other countries, or tried to? You dont think the USSR exploited other Stalinist states?


I support the communist bloc of the 1950's when the USSR and the PRC were on friendly terms. The USSR and PRC cooperated to defeat the Western imperialists in North Korea. However, the big thing that went wrong that was the Sino-Soviet split which got worse over time.

It there is ever going to be a communist world, we have to focus on fighting the capitalists and not one another. United we stand. Divided we fall. Capitalism will destroy us all.

Stalinism destroyed socialists and socialism.

[daft punk]

But then, perhaps, here is where the infighting occurs. As a Stalinist, I view Trotskyism as being anti-communistic and subversive, but I have no doubt in my mind that a Trotskyite would say the same thing about Stalinism. Leftists need to find a way to develop correct theory while at the same time remaining united and encouraging cooperation.

The only real answer is for Stalinism to die out. It is anti-socialist, yeah. Trots can and do work with Stalinists on some things, but when it comes to explaining the 20th century to people, the Stalinists are 100% wrong and do socialism no favours. People don't want to live in a place like the USSR and certainly not North Korea. It is absurd to think that the masses in the west are ever gonna want socialism if they equate it with the Stalinist regimes.

If Britain was a Stalinist regime now we wouldn't be having this debate on the internet because it would be banned.

[cb9's_unity]

Zulu, you have clearly made the same problem with internalizing bourgeois rhetoric. One isn't anti-capitalist through just becoming the opposite of what the capitalists believe. You are still operating around the axis of bourgeois distinctions. So even if you are disagreeing with the capitalists, you are only doing so by inverting the same world view.


Yes.

When you get to the bottom of it, the short answer is "yes".

As far as the Marxism goes, you are wrong.

Marx's interpretation of history was grounded in economic analysis. His politics and philosophy, however, were not. In fact, his critique of capitalism was that it had become obsessed with, and governed by, economics. As the capitalist became capital personified he because a close to perfect economic agent, and saw people less for their human worth and more for their economic worth.

Socialism is a system that tears man out of his economic constraints and ends economics as the dominant factor of human existence. Unrestrained human creativity through labor is what characterizes human existence instead the economic considerations the cause man to deny his potential in order to gain the resources necessary to survive.

You have made a critical mistake in believing that what Marx said has occurred throughout human history is what should occur under socialism.


"Political freedom" is an ideological bomb used by the capitalists against those who oppose capitalism. That's how Communism and Nazism get mixed up in the minds of the Western folks, by the way.

... under the guise of "political freedom", mind you.

Why not? If you are "politically free" who can prevent you from striving to get richer than your next door neighbor Joe? Without trampling on his "freedoms", of course, and all that blah-blah...It is stunning to me how devoted you are to bourgeois definitions. Political freedom is a very broad term, with many different interpretations. Capitalists do not own the term and you may be the first socialist I've ever encountered who has ceded it to them so easily.

Also, one can't get rich off of political freedoms on their own. That's why politics and economics aren't the same word. Capitalists may divide politics and economics too much, but they certainly aren't synonyms. One can be politically free in the sense that they have freedom of speech, assembly, belief, movement, and other political freedoms that represent the greatest advances of the capitalist era. Part of being a Marxist is admitting that capitalism has done some positive things in this world, but that those things don't make up for the damage it constantly does. Socialism promises to keep those positives of political freedom while it dismantles capitalist economics. You can be completely politically free, but if you don't have economic property rights then you can neither be rich nor exploitative.


And the source of that problem was another problem, a more fundamental one, called the global market. So Khrushchev's policy of "peaceful coexistence" was, in fact, throwing in the towel, since which the time began ticking against the Socialist bloc. Mao realized that at once, tried to talk some Marxist-Leninist sense back into Khrushchev, but alas.No, it was Stalin who turned the Soviet State into a functional equivalent of the bourgeois class. He focused on developing the productive capacity of the USSR instead of developing working class democracy. I fully understand, and have already accounted for in this thread, the threat the global market posed to the USSR from the outset. The capitalists markets cared overwhelmingly about economics, and Stalin decided to try and beat them at their own game. So instead of giving the workers control over the means of production, which Marx advocated, he placed control in the hands of a relatively small group that dictated what the workers would do. Capitalism and Stalinism both exist to emphasize the growth of production to irrational extents while subjugating the working class politically.


Yes, but Karl Marx rectified that.

No, it was Karl Marx. He said that economy was the basis of everything, while democracy and whatnot was the superstructure.You need a deeper understanding of Marx here. The economy is the term given to a standard set of economic relations in a certain. It consists of the means of production and the mode of production. Usually a political superstructure is created who's leaders control the means of production and have an interest in sustaining the mode of production. That the political superstructure arises from the economy does not make it irrelevant. This is because when the means of production change in a way as to seriously alter the mode of production, the new group that best harnesses the new means of production can only cement their dominance by controlling the political superstructure. The problem with capitalism is that the workers are what make the means of production produce, but the capitalist political superstructure ensures a mode of production that keeps economic power in capitalist hands. The only way for the working class to liberate itself is to take full control of the means of production and rearrange the economy to fit its needs. Without democracy there can be no assurance that socialist economic change can take place, as any group that isn't constantly responsible to the working class has placed itself in a relation to the means of productions that differences fundamentally from the relation the working class has to the means of production.

[Ostrinski]

Marxist-Leninists make my penis sad.

[Zulu]

Zulu, you have clearly made the same problem with internalizing bourgeois rhetoric. One isn't anti-capitalist through just becoming the opposite of what the capitalists believe. You are still operating around the axis of bourgeois distinctions. So even if you are disagreeing with the capitalists, you are only doing so by inverting the same world view.

On the contrary. You even contradict yourself here, because you first imply that I try to be "anti-capitalist" by becoming the "opposite" of them, and then accuse me of not breaking enough with the presumably capitalist-specific focus on economy (so who is trying to be anti-capitalist by being the "opposite" of them, really?).





Socialism is a system that tears man out of his economic constraints and ends economics as the dominant factor of human existence. Unrestrained human creativity through labor is what characterizes human existence instead the economic considerations the cause man to deny his potential in order to gain the resources necessary to survive.
Yes, but that is only supposed to happen in the end, while the transition from capitalism to communism is possible only through fundamental change of the relations of production (which are economic in nature). Even Lenin's critisism of the "Economism" (i.e. focus on economic demands rather than political ones) in the revolutionary movement was grounded on its not being radical enough in terms of economy, while the political demands and slogans, such as "Down with the autocracy!", for example, are through dialectical links meant to affect the economic relations, creating conditions to move on to the next stage of revolutionary movement.





It is stunning to me how devoted you are to bourgeois definitions.

No I am not. Personally, I even don't think of the communists as "the left", since that kind of terminology does not apply to anything outside the bourgeois (Conservatives vs. Liberals) political discourse.





Political freedom is a very broad term, with many different interpretations. Capitalists do not own the term and you may be the first socialist I've ever encountered who has ceded it to them so easily.

Sure. This can actually work both ways, don't you think? "Freedom is slavery", why not? And I definitely can't see how the possibility to vote for this or that can make you any more free, if all your material needs are already met (as will be the case in communism). At any rate, this argument must be made from the perspective of what kind of decision making process better suits the end goal, but not from the perspective of "unalienable rights".





Also, one can't get rich off of political freedoms on their own. That's why politics and economics aren't the same word. Capitalists may divide politics and economics too much, but they certainly aren't synonyms. One can be politically free in the sense that they have freedom of speech, assembly, belief, movement, and other political freedoms that represent the greatest advances of the capitalist era.
They were only advances as long as they promoted economic development, scientific progress, etc. These days they are used mainly to stall economic progress and scientific development, by preventing transition to socialism. It's likely that once such a transition is accomplished, nobody in their right mind would use freedom of speech to advocate return to capitalism (and such a state of affairs should be the criterion for the accomplishment of the transition), but while the transition has not been complete yet, you'll be stumbling every step of the way on crowds of people who say "No, capitalism is better, let's go back and have even more freedom, to vote for what we want with our dollars!"





Part of being a Marxist is admitting that capitalism has done some positive things in this world, but that those things don't make up for the damage it constantly does. Socialism promises to keep those positives of political freedom while it dismantles capitalist economics.
Socialism promises to keep capitalism's rationality of the approach towards organizing the material side of human existence. If it turns out that political freedom undermines that approach in the communist formation, then political freedom should be discarded, as something reactionary.





You can be completely politically free, but if you don't have economic property rights then you can neither be rich nor exploitative.
If you are completely politically free, you can openly demand to be given economic property rights, organize a meeting and then a mass movement in support of your demands, win the elections and restore capitalism.





No, it was Stalin who turned the Soviet State into a functional equivalent of the bourgeois class. He focused on developing the productive capacity of the USSR instead of developing working class democracy.
Anarcho-Trotskyism. How can this work? Only the workers are allowed to vote, and the only type of things they are allowed to vote for is an army without officers?





I fully understand, and have already accounted for in this thread, the threat the global market posed to the USSR from the outset. The capitalists markets cared overwhelmingly about economics, and Stalin decided to try and beat them at their own game.
Yeah, and how was he supposed to beat them, if not at their own game?

In anything, socialism is about beating capitalism at its own game: becoming more efficient, more actual (to use Hegelian terminology) at serving the needs of the human race. Once the capitalism is beaten, then the socialism can take a deep breath, look around and establish new rules of the game as it sees fit. But until then the only choice will be to play by the rules, or to play foul, but not to play a give-away.





So instead of giving the workers control over the means of production, which Marx advocated, he placed control in the hands of a relatively small group that dictated what the workers would do. Capitalism and Stalinism both exist to emphasize the growth of production to irrational extents while subjugating the working class politically.
OK, so this "Stalinism" continues to subjugate the workers, and in that respect it's no better than capitalism. But let's take a look at other aspects of life, aside from subjugation. Education - free. Health care (+sports) - free. Unemployment - none. Wages - grow. Prices - drop. It's still not a paradise on Earth, but something definitely better than the Russian Empire. And... oh, look! They're recruiting workers en masse into the "relatively small group" that dictates what to do! No way, no way to go, Comrade Stalin! Better return to capitalism, and try again this "political freedom" of such undoubtedly honorable gentlemen as Locke and Jefferson...





The only way for the working class to liberate itself is to take full control of the means of production and rearrange the economy to fit its needs. Without democracy there can be no assurance that socialist economic change can take place, as any group that isn't constantly responsible to the working class has placed itself in a relation to the means of productions that differences fundamentally from the relation the working class has to the means of production.

The workers are the good guys solely for one reason alone: they have no interest in sustaining the current mode of production, which is objectively outdated and does not reflect the potential of the productive forces which has already developed, much less so the further potential that can develop, once the mode of production is adjusted to the current level of the productive forces. So the workers are the class that can mobilize for a revolution to carry out this adjustment. The problem with that is that the workers can't mobilize by themselves, and that's when the vanguard party has to come to the scene, so that the workers could be mobilized and carry out the change. But the change can hardly be carried out through the old institutions of the liberal democracy (including political freedoms). These institutions played their role when the feudal formation was transformed into the capitalist formation, but that's about all they were good for, as far as revolutionary change goes. The new change and new revolution require new institutions through which they can be carried out. And the main of these institutions is the vanguard party. So it's up to the vanguard party to (1) mobilize the workers and (2) become the instrument with which the workers carry out the revolutionary change.


.

[A Marxist Historian]

Why have the 20th century Communist experiments turned out to be grotesque failures? And how can we, as 21st century leftists, avoid spawning similar failures in the future?

The title I have chosen may infuriate some of you but, it's a question that needs to be asked.

The "grotesque" is indeed provocative to revolutionaries and leftists, especially combined with your sig about how the Hew Hess Hay ain't so bad after all. And the failures were partial and not total.

But, to answer the OP, adjective purged as adjectives usually should be, because you can't build socialism in one country.

-M.H.-

[Rooster]

Who says they were all "grotesque failures"? Some of us are of the opinion that the pre-Khrushchevite Soviet Union and Hoxha's Albania represented the successful implementation of socialism.

Oh? Successful? Implemented socialism? Pray tell, where are they now?

[A Marxist Historian]

So is the matter purely one of economics? The OP didn't do much to define what was meant by failure. You've taken it to mean creating a sound economic foundation. I believe there is much more to socialism than economics.

Whether you realize it or not, your whole analysis was heavily influenced by bourgeois thinking. Because capitalism exists solely to create more capital, economic production becomes central to all social criticism in capitalist nations. Objective economic measurement trumps the qualitative standard of life across the population. Surely when someone who isn't a capitalist talks about success or failure they should also consider vital things such as political freedom. How could you possibly have any sort of praise for the DPRK or even say they have a strong socialist foundation? It is clearer now than ever that democracy does not exist exist in that country, and that the people are repressed by a despotic government. Socialism has not been successful if it has let monarchy develop.

Similarly, socialism has not been successful if it has allowed capitalism to return. Socialism exists to liberate people from all exploitation, not just capitalist exploitation. A people who have been liberated from exploitation, and firmly have power in their hands, would never have allowed capitalism to return. The problem with so many so-called socialist countries is that the state started to mirror the function of the bourgeoisie, and obsess over production instead of it's duty to support the people. I recognize that this was a survival tactic, and that it is difficult to develop democracy when the capitalist world is aiming to destroy you. However, what survived was not socialism. All that remained were institutions dedicated to beating capitalism at its own game, and when they could not prove that they were doing so, the people found no reason to fight for the states defense.

Historically, socialism was something much more than an economic system. Only the confusion of contemporary political discourse has tried to rip away from socialism its democratic basis. Thus socialism must be judged foremost by the level of freedom taken by its participants. It may not be able to be objectively measured, but only capitalists try to put the complexity of human well being into a single number.

Socialism can succeed if it rededicates itself to an expansive analysis and critique of capitalism in its 21st century form. That means completely re-evaluating the real psychological connection the working class has to itself, the means of production, and the capitalist state that changes in material conditions have precipitated. It will need to stop glorifying old institutions that arose out of entirely different circumstances and perished under conditions that are fleeting. I'm not someone who thinks it was impossible for socialism to succeed in the 20th century, but one has to remember that the world was still in its honeymoon period with capitalism. As we speak capitalism is showing that its relative stability and sustained economic growth in the last half of the 20th century isn't the clear cut future of capitalism. It is inevitable that the capitalists will try to reach back into the disastrous 20th century to try and fix their current problems, if the socialists do the same the results will be equally disastrous.

Is socialism all about economics? No. But Marxism is.

Ever read Marx's most well known book, Capital?

As for "democracy," that's a classless, bourgeois concept, as Lenin explained so well. We are for the rule of the working class, the dictatorship of the proletariat.

We are for proletarian democracy, not bourgeois democracy.

-M.H.-

[Paul Cockshott]

Why have the 20th century Communist experiments turned out to be grotesque failures? .

By what standard were they grotesque failures?
By the standards of 1649, 1789, 1848?

[28350]

the historical immaturity of the proletariat

[cb9's_unity]

On the contrary. You even contradict yourself here, because you first imply that I try to be "anti-capitalist" by becoming the "opposite" of them, and then accuse me of not breaking enough with the presumably capitalist-specific focus on economy (so who is trying to be anti-capitalist by being the "opposite" of them, really?).

You have seemed to completely miss the point of my criticism. Capitalism has set up a certain view of reality in which to debate. For the most part you just invert the capitalist view of reality, but your still operating on the capitalist grounds. I'm completely rejecting the way most capitalists view reality in favor of a less biased outlook. There is no contradiction there.


Yes, but that is only supposed to happen in the end, while the transition from capitalism to communism is possible only through fundamental change of the relations of production (which are economic in nature). Even Lenin's critisism of the "Economism" (i.e. focus on economic demands rather than political ones) in the revolutionary movement was grounded on its not being radical enough in terms of economy, while the political demands and slogans, such as "Down with the autocracy!", for example, are through dialectical links meant to affect the economic relations, creating conditions to move on to the next stage of revolutionary movement.

Revolution can only occur because there is a change in the relations of production. A basic element of historical materialism is that revolution occurs because a new class can better control the means of production. Once the working class has democratic control there is already a sufficient change. The fundamental economic change is the first to happen during a revolution, and then the cultural marks of capitalism slowly fade away. This fading away is the transition from socialism to communism (or in purely Marx's terms from a lower to higher stage of socialism).

All the changes in the relation to production that are necessary should happen extremely quickly. As soon as the capitalist class does not exist the change in economic relations are over. Of course, the situation in Russia was much more complicated because it was underdeveloped. The massive peasantry ensured that class relations would not be totally resolved even after the revolution. This is one of the main reasons why the transition to socialism failed in Russia.



No I am not. Personally, I even don't think of the communists as "the left", since that kind of terminology does not apply to anything outside the bourgeois (Conservatives vs. Liberals) political discourse.


This is an intellectual dodge if I have ever seen one. Even if you don't accept the left-right stuff you are still entirely accepting the bourgeois definition of political freedom. That element of bourgeois thinking has engrained itself in you and you seem to be unable to separate the concept of political freedom from its bourgeois connotations.



Sure. This can actually work both ways, don't you think? "Freedom is slavery", why not? And I definitely can't see how the possibility to vote for this or that can make you any more free, if all your material needs are already met (as will be the case in communism). At any rate, this argument must be made from the perspective of what kind of decision making process better suits the end goal, but not from the perspective of "unalienable rights".

I'm not saying that any definition of freedom is a valid one. I'm just saying that the bourgeois definition is not the only one.

What is your definition of material needs? If we kept everyone in a box with an IV in them to keep them healthy and alive would their material needs be met?

I think freedom is a fundamental need of humanity, and certain "rights" are needed to ensure that happens (though I understand rights are social constructions of man, and not gifts of nature like most liberal theorists assert). For example, man ought to have more control over his own creative labor than any sort of market. Socialism exists to give man that freedom, not just to ensure that he is being fed and housed. To be fully human you need to have as wide a range of possibilities open to you as society can practically allow. Capitalism fails in this regard because it restricts people to their class and forces most people to submit to the market. We are against capitalism because we are for freedom, because we recognize their is more to life than simply gaining enough means to stay alive.


They were only advances as long as they promoted economic development, scientific progress, etc. These days they are used mainly to stall economic progress and scientific development, by preventing transition to socialism. It's likely that once such a transition is accomplished, nobody in their right mind would use freedom of speech to advocate return to capitalism (and such a state of affairs should be the criterion for the accomplishment of the transition), but while the transition has not been complete yet, you'll be stumbling every step of the way on crowds of people who say "No, capitalism is better, let's go back and have even more freedom, to vote for what we want with our dollars!"

So what? People can demand capitalism all they want, but they can't defy historical forces that are already set in motion. If the working class is prepared to take power for itself there is no turning back no matter what anybody says.

The working class can only achieve socialism if it convinces itself that socialism is necessary. Once a revolution in a first world country comes to power there will be no material basis for capitalism to return. However, if that revolution is in the hands of some group that is not completely accountable to the working class, it is conceivable that capitalism could return. Restricting democracy gives counter revolutionaries a mechanism through which they can avoid real socialism or return to capitalism. A state which is detached from the people (which is any non-working class democratic state) can be hijacked. This is what has happened in every single "socialist" country (the possible exception being Cuba, though there is already evidence of a slipping back into capitalism without Fidel at the helm).


Socialism promises to keep capitalism's rationality of the approach towards organizing the material side of human existence. If it turns out that political freedom undermines that approach in the communist formation, then political freedom should be discarded, as something reactionary.

Capitalism is the farthest thing from rational. It's irrationality is what is going to bring its downfall, because capital is so interested in growing itself that it ends up destroying itself.

The thinking that capitalism has organized anything primarily towards human existence is reactionary and should be discarded.


If you are completely politically free, you can openly demand to be given economic property rights, organize a meeting and then a mass movement in support of your demands, win the elections and restore capitalism.

Political freedom does not flick the off switch on the material conditions of history. Socialist democracy should do enough to ensure that anti-socialist forces will never even have a chance at the ballot box. If you don't believe that, you probably shouldn't be a socialist.


Anarcho-Trotskyism. How can this work? Only the workers are allowed to vote, and the only type of things they are allowed to vote for is an army without officers?

This is one of the funniest things I've read in a while.

There is literally nothing more Stalinist than avoiding a critique of the USSR by creating creating an Anarcho-Trotskyist strawman to tear down.


Yeah, and how was he supposed to beat them, if not at their own game?

In anything, socialism is about beating capitalism at its own game: becoming more efficient, more actual (to use Hegelian terminology) at serving the needs of the human race. Once the capitalism is beaten, then the socialism can take a deep breath, look around and establish new rules of the game as it sees fit. But until then the only choice will be to play by the rules, or to play foul, but not to play a give-away.

Capitalism's game is not serving the needs of the human race, it is serving the needs of capital. Stalin solely focused on increasing production, not on the real human needs of the people below him.


OK, so this "Stalinism" continues to subjugate the workers, and in that respect it's no better than capitalism. But let's take a look at other aspects of life, aside from subjugation. Education - free. Health care (+sports) - free. Unemployment - none. Wages - grow. Prices - drop. It's still not a paradise on Earth, but something definitely better than the Russian Empire. And... oh, look! They're recruiting workers en masse into the "relatively small group" that dictates what to do! No way, no way to go, Comrade Stalin! Better return to capitalism, and try again this "political freedom" of such undoubtedly honorable gentlemen as Locke and Jefferson...

I'm not interested in debating which pile of shit smells better. Capitalism and Stalinism each violate humanity in their own special way. Ironically, one of the things that capitalists and Stalinists have in common is that they believe the only choices are capitalism and Stalinism.


The workers are the good guys solely for one reason alone: they have no interest in sustaining the current mode of production, which is objectively outdated and does not reflect the potential of the productive forces which has already developed, much less so the further potential that can develop, once the mode of production is adjusted to the current level of the productive forces. So the workers are the class that can mobilize for a revolution to carry out this adjustment. The problem with that is that the workers can't mobilize by themselves, and that's when the vanguard party has to come to the scene, so that the workers could be mobilized and carry out the change. But the change can hardly be carried out through the old institutions of the liberal democracy (including political freedoms). These institutions played their role when the feudal formation was transformed into the capitalist formation, but that's about all they were good for, as far as revolutionary change goes. The new change and new revolution require new institutions through which they can be carried out. And the main of these institutions is the vanguard party. So it's up to the vanguard party to (1) mobilize the workers and (2) become the instrument with which the workers carry out the revolutionary change.

Workers are not the good guys because of the historical role they fill. They are the good guys because they are the vast majority of the people.

You are clearly stuck in 1917 Russia. You could make the argument that the workers really were mainly important because of their political capacity back then, because the peasantry was the vast majority of the people and needed to be liberated. I can't say I totally agree with Lenin's revolutionary method, but it theoretically respectable at the time and place where he advocated it.

What is clear to me is that Lenin's methods have failed to produce sustainable socialism in underdeveloped nations and failed to grow the socialist movement in developed nations. Where I live Leninism has only fractionated the socialist movement, and put up theoretical barriers to real working class solidarity. Democratic centralism and the vanguard party were successful in bringing about revolution in places where capitalism had not yet been thoroughly established. However, a central tenant of Marxism is that truth has no meaning outside of the historical conditions it rises from. If Marxism is to succeed it must be primarily concerned with building its tactics through the analysis of where and when each Marxist lives. If you keep clinging to your failed vanguardist tactics, believing they are the only universally correct ones, Marxism will continue to sputter.

[cb9's_unity]

Is socialism all about economics? No. But Marxism is.

Ever read Marx's most well known book, Capital?

I'm slowly but surely starting to read through Capital now. What I'm slowly realizing is that people who have only read the manifesto or Capital are often gripped by an implicit form of Hegelianism. Often Marx's earlier works are criticized for being too influenced by Hegel, but they are actually where Marx is most explicitly criticizing him. It is also where Marx is laying the justification and groundwork for the existence of a book like Capital.

People who don't know Marx's earlier works (and historically most Marxists haven't considering most weren't published until the 1930's) often make the same mistakes Marx criticized Hegel for making. People who have only read the later Marx basically treat the economy like it's the Absolute spirit. For them, the theoretical structure of the economy matters more than the real people who compose it.

Marx understood that the mechanics of the economy were much more important than prevailing philosophies or political rhetoric, and that those things actually arose from the state of the economy. This doesn't mean that Marx then only cared about the economy, he just realized that his time was best spent analyzing it. Marxism in it's totality is about humanity in its totality. It recognizes that how humans feed, shelter, and cloth themselves are the most basic elements of humanity in history, but it doesn't restrict humanity to those things. To restrict Marxism and humanity to economics gives the economy an Hegelian importance, and prevents us from understanding many other significant factors in the development of humanity.


As for "democracy," that's a classless, bourgeois concept, as Lenin explained so well. We are for the rule of the working class, the dictatorship of the proletariat.

We are for proletarian democracy, not bourgeois democracy.

Thankfully I've made it clear that I support working class democracy. I'm not sure why you insist that I'm accepting the bourgeois conception of democracy.

[the last donut of the night]

because the capitalist system in the 20th century was a grotesque failure

[NYAnarchist222]

Because they weren't communist at all. They were Fascist. to put it simply...