How do you Tell if a Nation is Communist?

[Bostana]

How do you tell if a nation is Communist? How would Marx and Lenin set up a Communist Nation and have that nation practice Communism?

[Caj]

You're kidding right. . . .

A "communist nation" is a contradiction.

[Ocean Seal]

How do you tell if a nation is Communist? How would Marx and Lenin set up a Communist Nation and have that nation practice Communism?
If you mean the lower stage of communism, or what Lenin would have called socialism, I would argue that there is no way to tell. We have disagreed about which nations are socialist before, and we will disagree about which nations are socialist after the revolution.

[Ostrinski]

Communism is stateless, a nation is sanctioned by a state, therefor contradiction.

[Bostana]

So wait,

To achieve Total Communism a country is stateless?

[Rooster]

Considering that the nation is a largely modern abstraction (akin to "the people") and as Pilsudski said: "It is the state that makes the nation and not the nation the state", then the whole point is contradictory.

[CommunityBeliever]

Communism cannot be expressed in terms of countries, nations, or states. Communism is a global stateless system where communal relations, free access, and scientific management replace the use of money.

[l'Enfermé]

My friend, I don't think you have read much Marxist literature. Your conceptions of Marxism and Socialism/Communism are completely wrong. But it is okay, it is so with everyone unless they learn. Thankfully, everything you need to learn is online. This is an online resource that is of incredible use to anyone that wants to learn about Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism and all that. (http://marxists.org/)

As someone born in the former-Soviet Union, I'm pretty fond of Bukharin's and Preobrazhensky's The ABC of Communism (http://marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/index.htm). Even though it's basic, it's very informative and yet very easy to read.


We have seen why the destruction of the capitalist system was inevitable. It is now perishing under our very eyes. It is perishing because it is affected by two fundamental contradictions: on the one hand, anarchy of production, leading to competition, crises, and wars; on the other hand, the class character of society, owing to which one part of society inevitably finds itself in mortal enmity with the other part (class war). Capitalist society is like a badly constructed machine, in which one part is continually interfering with the movements of another (see §13 (http://marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/01.htm#013) 'Fundamental contradictions of the capitalist system'). That is why it was inevitable that this machine would break down sooner or later.
It is evident that the new society must be much more solidly constructed than capitalism. As soon as the fundamental contradictions of capitalism have destroyed the capitalist system, upon the ruins of that system there must arise a new society which will be free from the contradictions of the old. That is to say, the communist method of production must present the following characteristics: In the first place it must be an organized society; it must be free from anarchy of production, from competition between individual entrepreneurs, from wars and crises. In the second place it must be a classless society, not a society in which the two halves are at eternal enmity one with the other; it must not be a society in which one class exploits the other. Now a society in which there are no classes, and in which production is organized, can only be a society of comrades, a communist society based upon labour.
Let us examine this society more closely.
The basis of communist society must be the social ownership of the means of production and exchange. Machinery, locomotives, steamships, factory buildings, warehouses, grain elevators, mines, telegraphs and telephones, the land, sheep, horses, and cattle, must all be at the disposal of society. All these means of production must be under the control of society as a whole, and not as at present under the control of individual capitalists or capitalist combines. What do we mean by 'society as a whole'? We mean that ownership and control is not the privilege of a class but of all the persons who make up society. In these circumstances society will be transformed into a huge working organization for cooperative production. There will then be neither disintegration of production nor anarchy of production. In such a social order, production will be organized. No longer will one enterprise compete with another; the factories, workshops, mines, and other productive institutions will all be subdivisions, as it were, of one vast people's workshop, which will embrace the entire national economy of production. It is obvious that so comprehensive an organization presupposes a general plan of production. If all the factories and workshops together with the whole of agricultural production are combined to form an immense cooperative enterprise, it is obvious that everything must be precisely calculated. We must know in advance how much labour to assign to the various branches of industry; what products are required and how much of each it is necessary to produce; how and where machines must be provided. These and similar details must be thought out beforehand, with approximate accuracy at least; and the work must be guided in conformity with our calculations. This is how the organization of communist production will be effected. Without a general plan, without a general directive system, and without careful calculation and book-keeping, there can be no organization. But in the communist social order, there is such a plan.
Mere organization does not, however, suffice. The essence of the matter lies in this, that the organization shall be a cooperative organization of all the members of society. The communist system, in addition to affecting organization, is further distinguished by the fact that it puts an end to exploitation, that it abolishes the division of society into classes. We might conceive the organization of production as being effected in the following manner: a small group of capitalists, a capitalist combine, controls everything; production has been organized, so that capitalist no longer competes with capitalist; conjointly they extract surplus value from the workers, who have been practically reduced to slavery. Here we have organization, but we also have the exploitation of one class by another. Here there is a joint ownership of the means of production, but it is joint ownership by one class, an exploiting class. This is something very different from communism, although it is characterized by the organization of production. Such an organization of society would have removed only one of the fundamental contradictions, the anarchy of production. But it would have strengthened the other fundamental contradication of capitalism, the division of society into two warring halves; the class war would be intensified. Such a society would be organized along one line only; on another line, that of class structure, it would still be rent asunder. Communist society does not merely organize production; in addition, it frees people from oppression by others. It is organized throughout.
The cooperative character of communist production is likewise displayed in every detail of organization. Under communism, for example, there will not be permanent managers of factories, nor will there be persons who do one and the same kind of work throughout their lives. Under capitalism, if a man is a bootmaker, he spends his whole life in making boots (the cobbler sticks to his last); if he is a pastrycook, he spends all his life baking cakes; if he is the manager of a factory, he spends his days in issuing orders and in administrative work; if he is a mere labourer, his whole life is spent in obeying orders. Nothing of this sort happens in communist society. Under communism people receive a many-sided culture, and find themselves at home in various branches of production: today I work in an administrative capacity, 1 reckon up how many felt boots or how many French rolls must be produced in the following month; tomorrow I shall be working in a soapfactory, next month perhaps in a steam-laundry, and the month after in an electric power station. This will be possible when all the members of society have been suitably educated.

[Grenzer]

So wait,

To achieve Total Communism a country is stateless?

Yup, the actual stage of communism refers to a classless, stateless society. Communism has never been achieved, pretty much everyone including the Marxist-Leninists and Maoists agree with this statement.

The terminology does get a bit confusing because some people differentiate between a "higher" stage of communism and a "lower" stage. Marx used the words communism and socialism interchangeably at times, but most people now refer to Socialism as the "lower" stage of communism where stateless, classless society has not been achieved yet, but is being actively worked towards.

[Bostana]

Thanks for the link

[Lanky Wanker]

So wait,

To achieve Total Communism a country is stateless?

I don't mean to sound like an arse or anything, but I thought this was like one of the first things we learnt on our communistic learning journey? But to the question: communism has no state and will happen worldwide, so therefore "a country" won't be stateless, the world will be stateless.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Communism can only be achieved when all the world join in and rejects capitalism. So as long as there are nation states present communism is impossible.

[Ostrinski]

So wait,

To achieve Total Communism a country is stateless?A country is inherently a nation-state, because nationality is an abstract identification, much like race, and therefore needs to be socially perpetuated if it is to actually be recognized socially. So in other words, a nation is just a line drawn in sand, which serves to divide labor and to protect capital. We have reached the point in global societal development that the nation-state as a political structure has outgrown all its use beyond the service of capital, and once capital is dismantled so to will the nation states fade away as anything other than historical relics as they will serve no function.

Now we've established that nations don't materially, but only socially, exist. The next step then is to talk of establishing socialism within a circumscribed area. The problem with this, as seen in every other socialist experiment, is that one particular region or area has a limited amount of resources on the whole, with maybe an abundance of one type of resource with shortage of another. If the global proletariat fails to overthrow the bourgeoisie, i.e the revolution fails to expand and internationalize, the economy will go down one of two roads:

1. Gives in to market strangulation and reluctantly opens doors for foreign investment effectively restoring the capitalist mode of production
2. A bureaucracy necessarily forms to ration out and distribute the disproportionately limited resources equally among the workers, which, with history as my proof, mechanically leads to a new ruling class developing from within the bureaucracy, a new bourgeoisie. In order to effectively ration out resources and basic necessities, the new ruling class will have to reintroduce not only strict hierarchical management but also exchange-oriented production itself. That is, it cannot surpass the process of accumulation and circulation, and therefore the contradictions, of capital.

This is the essential problem of Marxism-Leninism and SIOC.

Only through crushing the global market and dismantling global capital can we hope to overthrow the class enemy.

Internationalism is so vital, if you ever learn one thing this should be it.

[Deicide]

A country is inherently a nation-state, because nationality is an abstract identification, much like race, and therefore needs to be socially perpetuated if it is to actually be recognized socially. So in other words, a nation is just a line drawn in sand, which serves to divide labor and to protect capital. We have reached the point in global societal development that the nation-state as a political structure has outgrown all its use beyond the service of capital, and once capital is dismantled so to will the nation states fade away as anything other than historical relics as they will serve no function.

Now we've established that nations don't materially, but only socially, exist. The next step then is to talk of establishing socialism within a circumscribed area. The problem with this, as seen in every other socialist experiment, is that one particular region or area has a limited amount of resources on the whole, with maybe an abundance of one type of resource with shortage of another. If the global proletariat fails to overthrow the bourgeoisie, i.e the revolution fails to expand and internationalize, the economy will go down one of two roads:

1. Gives in to market strangulation and reluctantly opens doors for foreign investment effectively restoring the capitalist mode of production
2. A bureaucracy necessarily forms to ration out and distribute the disproportionately limited resources equally among the workers, which, with history as my proof, mechanically leads to a new ruling class developing from within the bureaucracy, a new bourgeoisie. In order to effectively ration out resources and basic necessities, the new ruling class will have to reintroduce not only strict hierarchical management but also exchange-oriented production itself. That is, it cannot surpass the process of accumulation and circulation, and therefore the contradictions, of capital.

This is the essential problem of Marxism-Leninism and SIOC.

Only through crushing the global market and dismantling global capital can we hope to overthrow the class enemy.

Internationalism is so vital, if you ever learn one thing this should be it.
Explained
http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/internet-memes-like-a-boss.jpg

[AmericanCommie421]

If there are no class distinctions, no state,the means of production are held in common, and society at large is controlled in a democratic fashion.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I agree with comrade Borz about reading The ABC of Communism by Bukharin and Preobrazhensky as a primer as it does an excellent job with basic concepts.

[Le Socialiste]

Lenin's implementation of various policies ran in direct contradiction with the basic tenets of communism, but reflected what he and the Bolsheviks deemed adequate - or correct - responses to the shifts in Russian society. Communism can't be confined to a single nation (contrary to what Stalin asserted); it is an inherently internationalist, borderless movement. No revolution can be considered remotely communist unless it acknowledges the necessity of socialism from below, that is, through the free expression and self-organization of the working-class into a network of worker-owned councils, assemblies, and congresses. If this working-class rightly realizes the need for internationalism and solidarity, if it refuses to see national divisions and urges its comrades to do the same, then it can be considered as moving towards communism.

[GoddessCleoLover]

With respect to the latest post of Le Socialiste, I find the views of Rosa Luxemburg on the Russian Revolution to be persuasive and quite prescient given that she sketched them out in 1918.

[Bostana]

This is the essential problem of Marxism-Leninism and SIOC.

Only through crushing the global market and dismantling global capital can we hope to overthrow the class enemy.

Internationalism is so vital, if you ever learn one thing this should be it.

ML's believe in destroying the global market.

[Homo Songun]

Communism is stateless, a nation is sanctioned by a state, therefor contradiction.

I agree that Communism was and will be stateless, but your reasoning here is incoherent. Statehood is not a necessary condition for nationhood. Otherwise, Ireland, for example, would have sprung into existence the moment the lower counties were freed from Britain. Same goes for Greece under the Ottoman empire, Philippines under Spain and so on. To say nothing of Kurdistan or Palestine as present day examples, both of which are nations by any criteria I've ever heard of.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

How do you tell if a nation is Communist? How would Marx and Lenin set up a Communist Nation and have that nation practice Communism?

If you translate the question to be, "How do you tell if a nation is socialist, according to Marx and Lenin," your post would be more explainable. The way I like to explain socialism is with a quote by Marx: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his contribution." There would still be a state in this lower phase of communism and it, as suggested by Lenin, would work according to the concepts of "he who does not work, neither shall he eat" and "an equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor." With the addition of Leninism into Marxist thought, the ideal of the vanguard party that protects the proletariat from capitalist restoration was formulated and ultimately added to what it means to be a socialist state, even though not every communist agrees with vanguardism. So, you can tell if a state is truly socialist by observing whether people get an equal amount of reward for an equal amount of labor and, if you view a socialist state through the eyes of a Marxist-Leninist, if there is one vanguard party that protects the working masses. Yet, some people do argue about whether there is a difference between the dictatorship of the proletariat and true socialism. I really have no comment on that argument.

^^^^^^I am explaining all this because I think you used the word "communist" when you really meant to use the word "socialist."

[Dabrowski]

I agree that Communism was and will be stateless, but your reasoning here is incoherent. Statehood is not a necessary condition for nationhood. Otherwise, Ireland, for example, would have sprung into existence the moment the lower counties were freed from Britain. Same goes for Greece under the Ottoman empire, Philippines under Spain and so on. To say nothing of Kurdistan or Palestine as present day examples, both of which are nations by any criteria I've ever heard of.

I think this is an important point. Brospierre's formulation is not well thought out.

A nation is an artifact of capitalist development. The characteristics of a nation -- an integrated national economy facilitated by common language and culture, communication (i.e. transportation) and trade -- did not exist among the pre-capitalist peoples of Europe. Under feudalism people's economic and political ties were not based on commodity exchange among a national community but on traditional hierarchies and service to a particular master.

The emergence of the first European nations proper was a bloody affair of subsuming all sorts of regional particularities to the ascendant capitalist class, which in this epoch acted not in its own name but through the absolute monarchy in its struggle against the local feudal lords. Guess why Occitan is a historical language and Tolouse is ruled by Paris? You can also see places in Europe where this process was less complete -- look at the Basque country in Spain and France, or Catalonia in Spain. Are Basque or Catalan not nationalities just because there is not a national government?

The further out that the capitalist mode of production spread, the weaker or more distant was the ruling class center of power, the more incomplete and contradictory was the emergence of the nation and the formation of the bourgeois nation-state. France again as an example -- France's African and Caribbean colonies were/are officially not colonies, but overseas "departments" of France. (Toussaint Louverture initially fought for the rights of black Haitians to be free citizens of France, against the secessionist white and mulatto slave owners!). But in practice the people of Senegal, Haiti, Algeria, Guadeloupe, etc. were not and are not integrated as equals into French economic, political and cultural life (for one thing, most Senegalese preferred to speak their language, Wolof, but the banks and government officials of "their" country spoke a different language in headquarters on another continent).

In short a capitalist class took root throughout the world, on the basis of world trade and European capitalist expansion, faster than the "classical" political-cultural-geographic basis for a ruling capitalist class could be developed out of preceding social arrangements among the peoples wwho had the misfortune of not being the first to amass great capital and erect a strong capitalist state. Then, once the central capitalist powers had expanded into imperialist centers, the possibility of further "classical" national development in the periphery was foreclosed. Nationality became not centripetal, uniting disparate regions into one national market with one government, but centrifugal, leading to colonies and oppressed nationalities pulling away from the ruling nation. Another example: Mexico, where hundreds of indigenous languages are spoken in addition to Spanish. Many Mexican immigrants in the U.S. are learning English not as a second language, but as a third. The Mexican bourgeoisie and its ideologists came up with the fascistic fantasy of the "cosmic race" in which the indigenous and criollo cultures have supposedly been blended into a uniform national identity -- but a lot of people in Oaxaca or Chiapas might beg to differ!

I think Trotsky expertly explains these contradictory tendencies of national development, using the particular example of Russia, in the chapter on "The Problem of Nationalities" in his History of the Russian Revolution -- you can read it here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch39.htm .

[Dabrowski]

If you translate the question to be, "How do you tell if a nation is socialist, according to Marx and Lenin," your post would be more explainable. The way I like to explain socialism is with a quote by Marx: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his contribution." There would still be a state in this lower phase of communism and it, as suggested by Lenin, would work according to the concepts of "he who does not work, neither shall he eat" and "an equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor." With the addition of Leninism into Marxist thought, the ideal of the vanguard party that protects the proletariat from capitalist restoration was formulated and ultimately added to what it means to be a socialist state, even though not every communist agrees with vanguardism. So, you can tell if a state is truly socialist by observing whether people get an equal amount of reward for an equal amount of labor and, if you view a socialist state through the eyes of a Marxist-Leninist, if there is one vanguard party that protects the working masses. Yet, some people do argue about whether there is a difference between the dictatorship of the proletariat and true socialism. I really have no comment on that argument.

^^^^^^I am explaining all this because I think you used the word "communist" when you really meant to use the word "socialist."

No, this is wrong. Socialism is a classless and stateless society. The question is no less illogical as you have rephrased it. Might as well ask how many ribs there are on a paramecium.

[Ostrinski]

ML's believe in destroying the global market.ML's believe in national self-determination and Socialism In One Country, that is the assertion that socialism is sustainable in a limited region and that a successful socialist economy can coexist with the global market, which is completely false.

[Ostrinski]

I agree that Communism was and will be stateless, but your reasoning here is incoherent. Statehood is not a necessary condition for nationhood. Otherwise, Ireland, for example, would have sprung into existence the moment the lower counties were freed from Britain. Same goes for Greece under the Ottoman empire, Philippines under Spain and so on. To say nothing of Kurdistan or Palestine as present day examples, both of which are nations by any criteria I've ever heard of.You're right, I was too vague. I was referring to nationality as we know it today. Nation-states only exist because of their service to capital and since national identity is a trait of bourgeois society, national identities necessarily seek their own bourgeois state. You're right in that there can be a national identity without a corresponding state, owing to the fact that there is not a strong enough bourgeois class amongst other things, but the fact that there exists national identities without states doesn't make them any less reactionary than those that do.

[Homo Songun]

You're right, I was too vague. I was referring to nationality as we know it today. Nation-states only exist because of their service to capital and since national identity is a trait of bourgeois society, national identities necessarily seek their own bourgeois state. You're right in that there can be a national identity without a corresponding state, owing to the fact that there is not a strong enough bourgeois class amongst other things, but the fact that there exists national identities without states doesn't make them any less reactionary than those that do.

Closer, but I still think you're off.

I would say the emergence of national identity is a trait of bourgeois rule, not bourgeois society. That's the position of most Marxists also.

Similarly, the idea of national identity being uniformly reactionary is pretty much alien to the Marxist method. Typically, Marxists say that something has some property only in dialectical relationship to something else. That's why they say say capitalism can be progressive in one era but not in another. It is in this sense that nationalism of the oppressed nations are progressive, but nationalism of the oppressor nations is reactionary. The former is so because it is "centrifugal" but the latter is "centripetal" to imperialist bourgeois rule, as Dabrowski put it. That's also why "MLs" typically support the Palestine national movement but not the Tibetan one: one weakens the grip of the imperialists and the other would strengthen it. As Stalin put it,


The question is as follows: Are the revolutionary potentialities latent in the revolutionary liberation movement of the oppressed countries already exhausted, or not; and if not, is there any hope, any basis, for utilizing these potentialities for the proletarian revolution, for transforming the dependent and colonial countries from a reserve of the imperialist bourgeoisie into a reserve of the revolutionary proletariat, into an ally of the latter?

Leninism replies to this question in the affirmative, i.e., it recognizes the existence of revolutionary capacities in the national liberation movement of the oppressed countries, and the possibility of using these for overthrowing the common enemy, for overthrowing imperialism. The mechanics of the development of imperialism, the imperialist war and the revolution in Russia wholly confirm the conclusions of Leninism on this score.

Hence the necessity for the proletariat of the "dominant" nations to support -- resolutely and actively to support -- the national liberation movement of the oppressed and dependent peoples.

This does not mean, of course, that the proletariat must support every national movement, everywhere and always, in every individual concrete case. It means that support must be given to such national movements as tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism, and not to strengthen and preserve it. Cases occur when the national movements in certain oppressed countries come into conflict with the interests of the development of the proletarian movement. In such cases support is, of course, entirely out of the question. The question of the rights of nations is not an isolated, self-sufficient question; it is a part of the general problem of the proletarian revolution, subordinate to the whole, and must be considered from the point of view of the whole. In the forties of the last century Marx supported the national movement of the Poles and the Hungarians and was opposed to the national movement of the Czechs and the South Slavs. Why? Because the Czechs and the South Slavs were then "reactionary nations," "Russian outposts" in Europe, outposts of absolutism; whereas the Poles and the Hungarians were "revolutionary nations," fighting against absolutism. Because support of the national movement of the Czechs and the South Slavs was at that time equivalent to indirect support for tsarism, the most dangerous enemy of the revolutionary movement in Europe.

Lest you think this position is unique to MLs or "SIOC", I am fairly certain that the piece by Trotsky that Dabrowski linked to will corroborate this. As I recall, Trotsky is on record as saying he was basically in agreement with Stalin's writings on the national question. This is likely in part because this kind of logic owes a debt to Hegel.

Anarchists? Who knows. They probably mostly agree with you, since the main theory of the state relies on on the notion of things having essences: governments are intrinsically authoritarian, whereas people are intrinsically good (and thus capable of self-government).

[l'Enfermé]

ML's believe in national self-determination and Socialism In One Country, that is the assertion that socialism is sustainable in a limited region and that a successful socialist economy can coexist with the global market, which is completely false.
Marx and Engels believed in national self-determination also. For example, a speech by Marx and Engels on Poland:

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/03/24.htm


'We have spoken here,' said Engels, 'of the reasons why the revolutionaries of all countries are bound to sympathize with and stand up for the cause of Poland. Only one point has been forgotten and it is this: the political situation into which Poland has been brought is a thoroughly revolutionary one, and it leaves Poland with no other choice but to be revolutionary or perish. This was evident even after the First Partition, which was brought about by the efforts of the Polish nobility to preserve a constitution and privileges which had forfeited their right to exist and were detrimental to the country and to general order instead of preserving the peace and securing progress. Even after the First Partition a section of the aristocracy recognized their mistake and became convinced that Poland could only be restored by means of a revolution; — and ten years later we saw Poland fighting for freedom in America. The French revolution of 1789 found an immediate echo in Poland. The constitution of 1791, embodying the rights of man, became the banner of the revolution on the banks of the Vistula and made Poland the vanguard of revolutionary France, and that at a moment when the three powers which had already plundered Poland were uniting to march on Paris and to stifle the revolution there. Could they allow revolution to nestle at the centre of the Coalition? Impossible! Again they threw themselves upon Poland, this time intending to rob it completely of its national existence. The unfurling of the revolutionary banner was one of the main reasons for the subjugation of Poland. A land which has been fragmented and struck off the list of nations because it has been revolutionary can seek its salvation nowhere but in revolution. And thus we find Poland taking part in all revolutionary struggles. Poland understood this in 1863 and during the uprising whose anniversary we are celebrating today it published the most radical revolutionary programme which has ever been laid down in eastern Europe. It would be ridiculous, because of the existence of a Polish aristocratic party, to regard the Polish revolutionaries as aristocrats who want to restore the aristocratic Poland of 1772. The Poland of 1772 is lost forever. No power on earth will be able to raise it up from the grave. The new Poland to which the revolution will give birth differs, from a social and political point of view, just as fundamentally from the Poland of 1772 as does the new society which we are rapidly approaching from present society.
'Another word. No one can enslave a nation with impunity. The three powers which murdered Poland have been severely punished. Let us look at my own fatherland, Prussia-Germany. In the name of national unification we have annexed Poles, Danes and Frenchmen — and we now have a Venice three times over; we have enemies everywhere, we burden ourselves with debts and taxes in order to pay for countless masses of soldiers, who, at the same time, are used to oppress German workers. Austria — even official Austria — knows all too well what a burden its bit of Poland is. At the time of the Crimean War Austria was ready to march against Prussia on condition that Russian Poland was occupied and liberated. This, however, did not enter into the plans of Louis Napoleon and even less into the plans of Palmerston. And as far as Russia is concerned, we can see that in 1861 the first significant movement broke out among the students, which was all the more dangerous because the people everywhere were in a state of great agitation following the emancipation of the serfs; and what did the Russian government do, seeing, as it did, the danger? — It provoked the uprising of 1863 in Poland; for it has been proved that this uprising was its work. The movement among the students, the deep agitation among the people disappeared immediately and their place was taken by Russian chauvinism, which poured over Poland once the preservation of Russian rule in Poland was at stake. Thus, the first significant movement in Russia came to an end as a result of the pernicious struggle against Poland. Indeed, the reunification of Poland lies in the interests of revolutionary Russia and it is with pleasure that I learn this evening that this view corresponds with the convictions of the Russian revolutionaries (who had expressed a similar view at the meeting).
Marx spoke to this effect: 'The workers' party of Europe takes the most decisive interest in the emancipation of Poland and the original programme of the International Working Men's Association expresses the reunification of Poland as a working-class political aim. What are the reasons for this special interest of the workers' party in the fate of Poland?
'First of all, of course, sympathy for a subjugated people which, with its incessant and heroic struggle against its oppressors, has proven its historic right to national autonomy and self-determination. It is not in the least a contradiction that the international workers' party strives for the creation of the Polish nation. On the contrary; only after Poland has won its independence again, only after it is able to govern itself again as a free people, only then can its inner development begin again and can it cooperate as an independent force in the social transformation of Europe. As long as the independent life of a nation is suppressed by a foreign conqueror it inevitably directs all its strength, all its efforts and all its energy against the external enemy; during this time, therefore, its inner life remains paralysed; it is incapable of working for social emancipation. Ireland, and Russia under Mongol rule, provide striking proof of this.
'Another reason for the sympathy felt by the workers' party for the Polish uprising is its particular geographic, military and historical position. The partition of Poland is the cement which holds together the three great military despots: Russia, Prussia and Austria. Only the rebirth of Poland can tear these bonds apart and thereby remove the greatest obstacle in the way to the social emancipation of the European peoples.
'The main reason for the sympathy felt by the working class for Poland is, however, this: Poland is not only the only Slav race which has fought and is fighting as a cosmopolitan soldier of the revolution. Poland spilt its blood in the American War of Independence; its legions fought under the banner of the first French republic; with its revolution of 1830 it prevented the invasion of France, which had been decided upon by the partitioners of Poland; in 1846 in Cracow it was the first to plant the banner of revolution in Europe, in 1848 it had a glorious share in the revolutionary struggles in Hungary, Germany and Italy; finally, in 1871 it provided the Paris Commune with the best generals and the most heroic soldiers.
'In the brief moments when the popular masses in Europe have been able to move freely they have remembered what they owe to Poland. After the victorious March revolution of 1848 in Berlin the first act of the people was to set free the Polish prisoners, Mieroslawski and his fellow sufferers, and to proclaim the restoration of Poland; in Paris in May 1848 Blanqui marched at the head of the workers against the reactionary National Assembly to force it into armed intervention on behalf of Poland; finally in 1871, when the French workers had constituted themselves as a government, they honoured Poland by giving its sons the leadership of its armed forces.
'And at this moment, too, the German workers' party will not in the least be misled by the reactionary behaviour of the Polish deputies in the German Reichstag; it knows that these gentlemen are not acting for Poland but in their private interests; it knows that the Polish peasant, worker, in short, every Pole not blinded by the interests of social status, is bound to recognize that Poland has and can only have one ally in Europe — the workers' party.
'Long live Poland!'



An essay by Engels from 1866: What have the working classes have to do with Poland? (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1866/03/24.htm)

[Bostana]

ML's believe in national self-determination and Socialism In One Country, that is the assertion that socialism is sustainable in a limited region and that a successful socialist economy can coexist with the global market, which is completely false.

Well in my ML defense, I don't want to start a tendency war or anything, but Socialism in one nation is simply the idea that if you want to spread Communism to other countries you need to achieve it in your own first.

[Leftsolidarity]

So wait,

To achieve Total Communism a country is stateless?

*facepalm*

[Le Socialiste]

Well in my ML defense, I don't want to start a tendency war or anything, but Socialism in one nation is simply the idea that if you want to spread Communism to other countries you need to achieve it in your own first.

Yes, and it's terribly flawed, not to mention ignorant of the nature of the class struggle and the necessity of internationalism. Socialism cannot be achieved while isolated from the rest of the world. It will inevitably find that it can't do anything other than move towards an accommodation of the capitalist powers, and eventually find itself among them - not as an observer looking in, but as a participant. Socialism isn't built according to the dictates of private interests, nor through dictatorial methods; it finds itself flourishing in the hands of collective management (as organized from below). Socialism in one country is a foolish, shortsighted theory that isn't fit for practical application. It simply can't be done without first offering concessions, retreating from revolutionary collective management, and eventually rebuilding social, labor, and productive relations seen under capitalism. It doesn't work.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Yes, and it's terribly flawed, not to mention ignorant of the nature of the class struggle and the necessity of internationalism. Socialism cannot be achieved while isolated from the rest of the world. It will inevitably find that it can't do anything other than move towards an accommodation of the capitalist powers, and eventually find itself among them - not as an observer looking in, but as a participant. Socialism isn't built according to the dictates of private interests, nor through dictatorial methods; it finds itself flourishing in the hands of collective management (as organized from below). Socialism in one country is a foolish, shortsighted theory that isn't fit for practical application. It simply can't be done without first offering concessions, retreating from revolutionary collective management, and eventually rebuilding social, labor, and productive relations seen under capitalism. It doesn't work.

http://intelligentsingaporean.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/stalin1.jpg

What you believe is not equal to the truth.

[Grenzer]

Anarchists? Who knows. They probably mostly agree with you, since the main theory of the state relies on on the notion of things having essences: governments are intrinsically authoritarian, whereas people are intrinsically good (and thus capable of self-government).

I don't recall any serious anarchists saying that people are intrinsically good. This is just sectarian garbage, like the claims by reactionary demagogues that communism is a utopian ideology. Completely baseless straw man.

[Rooster]

What you believe is not equal to the truth.

I'm sorry to piss all over your fantasies here but have you not noticed that the USSR is no longer around?

[Omsk]

The question you asked is interesting,and i will try to answer it in a short but understandable way,however,we can't really talk about a communist country - because there will never be such a country,and such an thing simply can't exist - Communism,is a movement for the establishment of the classless, moneyless, stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production,so the idea that a single country can be communist,is absurd,the country can only be proleterian,or in the controll of the rich layers.

A Vanguard party of the working people does not just topple the rich rulling classes,and than promulgates that the society suddenly turned "communist" - that is impossible.First,the Dictatorship of the Proleteriat should be established,as the effective mean of minimalizing the threath of the reactionary bulwarks and reactionary fources who will certainly try to stop any kind of a workers struggle for liberation,from there,the Vanguard party and the people have to pass a huge and harsh way,to simply build a foundation for the 'new society' .A socialist revolution is something that will simply move on forward,and the struggle will advance regardless of wether the initial revolutionary struggle failed or succeeded. If the proleterian revolution is correctly led,the first part of the struggle - the rise up against the tormentors,will end up as a success,however it must at once advance to the next tasks which require a solution - and the main task that could rise is: spreading the revolution - if the revolutionary situation is good,and the masses in other countries are ready for a struggle,than the revolution must advance and the initial revolutionary forcess must help in any way they can,the other revolutionary groups in other countries.However,if the situation looks grim,and the troops of reaction crushed or prevented the revolution in the nearby countries,that the initial revolution must be protected,while at same time bridges,metaphorically speaking,must not be raized - and an organization which would guide international struggle must be created,and it must be effective and proficient.

[Brosip Tito]

No single nation can be communist, so to answer OP's question: You can tell that a nation is communist, when the rest of the world is communist: a classless, stateless, moneyless society.

On the Right to National Self-Determination:

Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky apply this to all. It is, as they call it, a "right".

However, Marx and Engels were noted to support some, whilst opposing others. The reason is because each situation has to be analyzed case by case. Marxists do not believe in the eternal formulae of "rights".

Check out "The National Question (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/index.htm)" by R.L.

[Bostana]

I'm sorry to piss all over your fantasies here but have you not noticed that the USSR is no longer around?

I am going to explain to you why it doesn't exist:

Khrushchev was instituting rightist economic policies inspired by Bukharin's later years, and replacing the idea of the multinational Soviet Motherland with Russian Nationalism and treating allied nations like colonies. And of course his demonetization of Stalin also included with it a demonetization of Marxism-Leninsim.

Khrushchev went a lot further than merely being critical of his mistakes. He routinely attacked Stalin as a person and some of the most disgusting suggestions about Stalin came from Khrushchev.
And within this narrative, he also attacked many of Stalin's positive Socialist policies, and justified his reversal away from Marxism-Leninism as getting away from the Stalin "Nightmare."

The day they started separating from the Marxism-Leninism s the day it started going down.

His policies reintroduced an emphasis on markets and steered the USSR towards state capitalism. He was a disciple of what is called the Right Opposition Group. These were people who believed in market Capitalism.
Khrushchev also allowed the illegal private economy o flourish. This became the main problem during the Brezhnev years, which saw basically total stagnation to flourish, and a huge growth in corruption. Meanwhile the party itself did nothing to combat this. Brezhnev himself was an open Russian Nationalist and led the USSR into and imperialistic was in Afghanistan and other Imperialistic meddling in trying to assert influence in non-socialist countries.
But obviously there is more to it than "Stalin did this, and Khrushchev did that" History is a story of materialist conditions, not of Great Men.
Things became so bad in the Brezhnev years because of the '77 recession, the illegal private sector controlled a huge part of the economy, especially in places like Kazakhstan. These mobsters and other Capitalists bribed Party officials to look the other way, and corruption reached to the very top.

It was an inability to accurtley respond to both internal and external problems and threats.

Post-1956 Party policies only aggravated these threats.

[Rooster]

I am going to explain to you why it doesn't exist:

Yes yes, I know of the Stalinist apologetics regarding this. You'd have to be blind not to notice it around here. If there was real socialism in the USSR... and it was in one country... and there no longer is any USSR, then that must mean that socialism in one country is a flawed theory. It failed even though socialism was completed in one country. If it wasn't flawed then there'd still be real socialism. Seeing how it's not, and even agreeing that it was real socialism (and I don't), then the concept of sioc is a dead end.

[Homo Songun]

Anarchists? Who knows. They probably mostly agree with you, since the main theory of the state relies on on the notion of things having essences: governments are intrinsically authoritarian, whereas people are intrinsically good (and thus capable of self-government). I don't recall any serious anarchists saying that people are intrinsically good. This is just sectarian garbage, like the claims by reactionary demagogues that communism is a utopian ideology. Completely baseless straw man.

Lol, you could do worse than to be libelously accused of saying that "people are good" :lol:

Anarchist theory is pretty categorical on this. As Proudhon said, "whoever lays his hands on me to govern me is a usurper and tyrant and I declare him my enemy." States are always an evil in the final analysis. It follows then that what they propose in it's place is necessarily a virtue -- the people ruling themselves. Again, Proudhon: "ANARCHY, or the government of each man by himself — or as the English say, self-government."

Its not like this is some kind of profound exegesis on my part though. It's pretty much impossible to miss. And even if Proudhon isn't one of the "serious anarchists" in your book (despite having like, invented the term), Chomsky and others basically talk about this nonstop. :confused: