About the Socialist states

[MaximMK]

This is for the people that criticize the socialist states and call them capitalist dictatorships but they forget that in those states ( ill take mine as example ) while the communists had the full power over the state people had free healthcare and the state paid the surgeries that had to be done abroad while today in capitalist Macedonia the healthcare is shit and people do not have cash for foreign surgeries. Maybe those countries were not really socialist but you cant call them capitalist because obviously they cared more about the people ( like in healthcare ) than the profits they could make selling medicine. Something like a capitalist state but with some socialist policies and tendency towards socialism but not pure capitalism for there are other examples of how the state put the people first before profits.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I agree. I still condemn those societies but many extended human freedom and living standards to their societies without destroying any that didn't exist in the previous society. Russia was a Tsarist autocracy before the bolsheviks, Cuba was a right-wing dictatorship under the butcher Batista and answered to the U.S., Vietnam was under French colonial rule, etc. etc. The new societies were better than the societies that proceeded them and are a hell of a lot better than the societies that came after. I don't support them or call them socialist, but they are not capitalist and not all bad either.

[Tim Cornelis]

You either have a capitalist mode of production or a socialist mode of production, a country cannot be "not really capitalist, but also not really socialist", because this implies it's some magical third alternative mode of production.

There are many capitalist societies with nationalised healthcare (Sweden, UK), it don't mean nothing.

[l'Enfermé]

Why is a Tsarist autocracy worse than a Stalinist autocracy?

[MaximMK]

Agree even tho they are not socialist as left-wing dictatorships they don't see the people as mere tools for making profit but actually do stuff that they don't have to do only to help peoples everyday life. Plus by having a leftist government the people are more educated on communism and lots of them would aid in a world revolution.



Why is a Tsarist autocracy worse than a Stalinist autocracy?Because in a Tsarist autocracy people are not taken care of they are mostly poor and hungry while in a socialist autocracy ( u dont have to take the worst for example ) the people have free healthcare and better standards and internationalism and racial tolerance is propagated. As leftists the rulers dont see the people as mere tools for gaining profit.

[Caj]

This is for the people that criticize the socialist states and call them capitalist dictatorships

A "socialist state" is a contradiction. Socialism is classless, while the state is an organ of class rule.

If you're referring to the Marxist-Leninist regimes of the 20th century (e.g. USSR, Cuba, China), then "capialist dictatorship" seems like an accurate description. Firstly, they weren't socialist, because they were experiments confined to their respective countries and weren't internationalist in nature. Secondly, they weren't even in transition to socialism, i.e., they weren't proletarian dictatorships. In their respective revolutions, the workers didn't take state power, overthrow the bourgeoisie, collectivie the means of production, or accomplish any of the other tasks essential to begin the transition to socialism.


but they forget that in those states ( ill take mine as example ) while the communists had the full power over the state people had free healthcare and the state paid the surgeries that had to be done abroad while today in capitalist Macedonia the healthcare is shit and people do not have cash for foreign surgeries.

What's your point? Socialism has nothing to do with free healthcare and other measures implemented for the sole purpose of appeasing the proletariat.

If you define socialism as the implementation of welfare state measures, then there ceases to be an objective way of differentiating socialism from capialism. Instead, we should define modes of production based on class relations to the means of production and the social relations among these classes. This is an objective and materialist way of differentiating between modes of production.


Maybe those countries were not really socialist but you cant call them capitalist because obviously they cared more about the people ( like in healthcare ) than the profits they could make selling medicine.

Measures such as universal healthcare are not done out of "care for the people". The bourgeois state does not concern itself with morality but with material self-interest. Measures like this are implemented for the appeasement of the proletariat and nothing more.


Something like a capitalist state but with some socialist policies and tendency towards socialism but not pure capitalism for there are other examples of how the state put the people first before profits.

What do you mean "a capialist state . . . with some socialist policies"? Socialism involves classlessness, statelessness, internationalism, and common ownership of the means of production. Capitalism involves classes, states, national boundaries, and private ownership of the means of production. They are completely incompatible.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Why is a Tsarist autocracy worse than a Stalinist autocracy?

I agree, it is no better. At the same time though, Lenin and the Soviet Union made great gains for their people and helped the people more than the Tsar did. I am anti-Stalin like you, but I also understand that the new society was better than the old (minus the hicup of Stalinism).

It seems that it is a heresy on the left to utter a single positive word for "socialist" countries even if you dislike them and criticize them. I am not even a Leninist, yet I understand that the USSR was a better society than the Tsarist autocracy or the "free-market paradise" that currently exists. I do not support these states, but I understand them in historical perspective.

Here is one example involving current citizens in Romania saying their "communist" past was better than their free-market present. http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/romanians_say_communism_was_better_than_capitalism _02030.html

EDIT: These things are not all black and white, good or bad. Humans are very complex things and their forms of social organization are much more complex. On certain instances (such as Nazi Germany) it is understandable to view things in such absolutist terms but most of the time things are not black and white, but complex.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

@ CAJ

I completely agree with you on the ridiculousness of "a capitalist state with some socialist policies...":rolleyes: Plain and simple, socialism is workers control of production and industry. If you don't have that in a society, it is not socialist.

[MaximMK]

So what you are suggesting is that socialist countries can not exist for socialism is classless, stateless and moneyless. If that is so than what is the difference from it and communism which comes afterward. Because what you are describing a revolution and than classless and stateless immediately is anarcho-communism.

[Caj]

So what you are suggesting is that socialist countries can not exist for socialism is classless, stateless and moneyless. If that is so than what is the difference from it and communism which comes afterward. Because what you are describing a revolution and than classless and stateless immediately is anarcho-communism.

Socialism and communism are synonymous. The attempt to make them seperate stages is of Leninist origin.

Anarcho-communism repudiates the use of the state as a means to bringing about classlessness. Marxists advocate the use of a proletarian dictatorship for this purpose. With the exception of Marxist-Leninists (and perhaps some Trotskyists), though, Marxists advocate a proletarian state that wouldn't constitute a state using anarchist definitions, so the difference is really just semantics.

[MaximMK]

I understand now. I was confused because some communists said a socialist country can exist and some say a country cant be socialist because they can't exist together. Now i see that some of the communists (Marxist-Leninists) think its possible and some don't. I thought most of the communists have the same idea but now i understand there are different opinions between the communists on key things like the existence of Socialist States.

[NorwegianCommunist]

You can't say a country is socialist if the workers don't control the means of production. Which in the USSR, they didn't.
Free healthcare and free education is things the government want to make free to start eliminating the need for a worker to be rich, before he can use those universal things.
Since the government acted like a capitalist and controlled the means of production, the USSR is called state capitalist.

[l'Enfermé]

Socialism and communism are synonymous. The attempt to make them seperate stages is of Leninist origin.

Anarcho-communism repudiates the use of the state as a means to bringing about classlessness. Marxists advocate the use of a proletarian dictatorship for this purpose. With the exception of Marxist-Leninists (and perhaps some Trotskyists), though, Marxists advocate a proletarian state that wouldn't constitute a state using anarchist definitions, so the difference is really just semantics.
It was Marx that wrote "Socialism" is the "first phase of Communism". Lenin did not deviate from Marx and Engels in this regard.

So yeah, the Bolsheviks didn't separate Socialism from Communism, this is a common misconception. In Bukharin's ABC of Communism, for example, only the word "Communism" is ever used.

[Caj]

You can't say a country is socialist if the workers don't control the means of production. Which in the USSR, they didn't.
Free healthcare and free education is things the government want to make free to start eliminating the need for a worker to be rich, before he can use those universal things.
Since the government acted like a capitalist and controlled the means of production, the USSR is called state capitalist.

Yep, essentially this. I just have two small corrections. Under socialism, classes cease to exist. So to say that the workers control the means of production under socialism is actually meaningless because "workers" no longer exist. Instead, the means of production is held in common. It is under the dictatorship of the proletariat, during which there are still classes, that the workers can be said to control the means of production. The other thing is that socialism is by definition global. If the revolution hasn't spread internationally, then the revolution is still happening and the proletarian dictatorship is a necessity to combat foreign counter-revolution. The DotP, then, can exist in one country, but socialism cannot.

[Caj]

It was Marx that wrote "Socialism" is the "first phase of Communism". Lenin did not deviate from Marx and Engels in this regard.

Care to cite where? Marx did make a distinction between the "lower phase" and "higher phase" of communism in his Critique of the Gotha Programme, but he never said that the "lower phase" was synonymous with socialism. He used communism and socialism interchangeably.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

You can't say a country is socialist if the workers don't control the means of production. Which in the USSR, they didn't.
Free healthcare and free education is things the government want to make free to start eliminating the need for a worker to be rich, before he can use those universal things.
Since the government acted like a capitalist and controlled the means of production, the USSR is called state capitalist.

I basically agree with you except overall I would not call the USSR capitalist OR socialist. While in certain instances in it's history it could be argued it was state capitalist (like in the NEP period) or more socialist (like right after the October revolution) it was overall something like a coordinator society, although I do agree with Hillel Tickin's analysis on this as well. Here, check this out:http://vimeo.com/29505740

It's long, but worthwhile.

[Le Socialiste]

This is for the people that criticize the socialist states and call them capitalist dictatorships but they forget that in those states ( ill take mine as example ) while the communists had the full power over the state people had free healthcare and the state paid the surgeries that had to be done abroad while today in capitalist Macedonia the healthcare is shit and people do not have cash for foreign surgeries. Maybe those countries were not really socialist but you cant call them capitalist because obviously they cared more about the people ( like in healthcare ) than the profits they could make selling medicine. Something like a capitalist state but with some socialist policies and tendency towards socialism but not pure capitalism for there are other examples of how the state put the people first before profits.

People have/had free healthcare in any number of countries. This doesn't make them socialist, nor does it mean they're implementing policies of a "socialist nature." Workers did not have control over the healthcare industry, they did not manage or regulate it along collective lines.

And if you weigh the difference(s) between capitalism and socialism as "caring about the people," you need to reacquaint yourself with what either one actually is.

[Blake's Baby]

This is for the people that criticize the socialist states and call them capitalist dictatorships but they forget that in those states ( ill take mine as example ) while the communists had the full power over the state people had free healthcare and the state paid the surgeries that had to be done abroad while today in capitalist Macedonia the healthcare is shit and people do not have cash for foreign surgeries. Maybe those countries were not really socialist but you cant call them capitalist because obviously they cared more about the people ( like in healthcare ) than the profits they could make selling medicine. Something like a capitalist state but with some socialist policies and tendency towards socialism but not pure capitalism for there are other examples of how the state put the people first before profits.

If you don't mind me asking, why do you identify as a 'Council Communist' if you support any (previously existing) 'socilist' states, and quote Che Guevara in your signature? Don't you know who the Council Communists were?



It was Marx that wrote "Socialism" is the "first phase of Communism". Lenin did not deviate from Marx and Engels in this regard.

So yeah, the Bolsheviks didn't separate Socialism from Communism, this is a common misconception. In Bukharin's ABC of Communism, for example, only the word "Communism" is ever used.

That's not true. Marx didn't regard socialism as the first phase of communism. He talked about the lower phase of communism and the higher phase of communism. Lenin inveted the idea that socialism was either the lower phase of communism, or the dictatorship of the proletariat, neither of which marx refered to as 'socialism'. That's why gaggles of official Soviet writers in the 1970s had to upbraid Engels for his incorrect terminology.

[Rooster]

That's why gaggles of official Soviet writers in the 1970s had to upbraid Engels for his incorrect terminology.

Heh, you should see some of the collected works I have from then. The annotation attempts to contort the text into the complete opposite of what Engels was writing. I'll try to look for an example. This'll be a laugh.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

If you don't mind me asking, why do you identify as a 'Council Communist' if you support any (previously existing) 'socilist' states, and quote Che Guevara in your signature? Don't you know who the Council Communists were?




That's not true. Marx didn't regard socialism as the first phase of communism. He talked about the lower phase of communism and the higher phase of communism. Lenin inveted the idea that socialism was either the lower phase of communism, or the dictatorship of the proletariat, neither of which marx refered to as 'socialism'. That's why gaggles of official Soviet writers in the 1970s had to upbraid Engels for his incorrect terminology.

Yes I know what the hell council communism is. I also have a generally understanding that things aren't black and white and more complex than many like to make them out. Just because I view things like that doesn't mean that I "support" these states and it's ignorant of you to say that considering I have already talked about this. Taking the Soviet Union as an example, there were massive problems with authoritarianism, lack of workers control, etc.etc. yet that society was better than the society that proceeded it and a hell of a lot better than the "free-market paradise" that came after. Yeltsin, the "president" that came after the fall of the USSR got rid of parliament, ruled by decree, pushed through neo-liberalist policies, increased unemployment and poverty, etc. etc. I support movements for freedom and defiantly do not support the Soviet Union as an example of socialism, but I also don't think the society coming after the Soviet Union should be celebrated as a light of freedom like it was in the western media.

What are your oppositions to Che? I can help either disprove or put them into prospective.

My understanding of Council Communism is essential these points:
1. While Bolshevik tactics may have worked for Russia, they would not work for western countries.
2. Many original Council Communists believed that the soviets in Russia were tools of the ruling class and Lenin's form of democratic centralism was authoritarian and flawed.
3. The workers should rule society and their worker's state through workers councils, federations, and other direct democratic institutions.
4. The Social Democratic idea of nationalizing industries being socialism is flawed. Socialism in the Council Communist sense is direct democratic control of the factories by the workers and their communities.
5. Here I will quote Anton Pannekoek. "What can a small party, however principled, do when what is needed are the masses?" He went on to say, "...it also follows from this theory that it is not even the entire communist party that exercises dictatorship, but the Central Committee, and it does first within the party itself, where it takes it upon itself to expel individuals and uses shabby means to get rid of opposition."
6. The Kronstadt Revolt in Russia was a revolt to re-institute the true socialism that the Bolshevik's had gotten rid of by the end of the Civil War.
7. The Trade Unions are bureaucratic and don't work in the interests of the workers. The workers need to form their own revolutionary organizations.
8. Parliamentary tactics are flawed and the proletarian revolution cannot be carried out through legislative bodies.

The 4 main thinkers of Council Communism are Herman Gorter, Anton Pannekoek, Sylvia Pankhurst, and Otto Ruhl (in my opinion). Other thinkers Council Communists respect and look to include Rosa Luxembourg and Antonio Gramsci.

It also seems that these ideas overlap with other ideologies, such as Libertarian Marxism, Left Communism, etc.

EDIT: JUST SAW YOU WEREN"T TALKING ABOUT ME....NOW I FEEL I LITTLE STUPID :)

[Q]

You either have a capitalist mode of production or a socialist mode of production, a country cannot be "not really capitalist, but also not really socialist", because this implies it's some magical third alternative mode of production.

Yes, a non-mode of production (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russiai-theories-soviet-t168685/index.html), although there is little magic involved.

[Blake's Baby]

I agree, it is no better. At the same time though, Lenin and the Soviet Union made great gains for their people and helped the people more than the Tsar did. I am anti-Stalin like you, but I also understand that the new society was better than the old (minus the hicup of Stalinism).

It seems that it is a heresy on the left to utter a single positive word for "socialist" countries even if you dislike them and criticize them. I am not even a Leninist, yet I understand that the USSR was a better society than the Tsarist autocracy or the "free-market paradise" that currently exists. I do not support these states, but I understand them in historical perspective...

Then from a 'historical perspective' I'm sure you agree that to talk about the USSR as if it was only ever one thing and stayed unchanged for 70 years, rather than a society that may have been better in some ways and/or at sometimes and worse in some ways and/or at some times, is totally a-historic. Moronic even.



...Here is one example involving current citizens in Romania saying their "communist" past was better than their free-market present. http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/romanians_say_communism_was_better_than_capitalism _02030.html

EDIT: These things are not all black and white, good or bad. Humans are very complex things and their forms of social organization are much more complex. On certain instances (such as Nazi Germany) it is understandable to view things in such absolutist terms but most of the time things are not black and white, but complex.

We caould all find things on the internet to prove that Americans prefer America to any other country, or people insisting that Israel is more tolerant than its neighbours and just wants to live in peace, or that the old days were better when kids went to school with no shoes but everyone was happy and you knew your neighbours. So what?

I remember watching interviews in 1989 with people in Poland and East Germany saying 'yeah, we don't like the political repression, but we don't want unemployment and youth crime either' and I think that's fair enough. Some things undoubtedly were better than they are now for many people in Eastern Europe. But other things were worse. Is the whole point to make a list and say 'on the whole, the Stalinist states were better/worse (delete according to inclination) than the bourgeois-democratic (if that) states?

Seems to me a much better idea is to say 'capitalism as we have it now is shit, but we're going forwards not backwards, and Stalinism was a proven failure 20 years and more ago'.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Then from a 'historical perspective' I'm sure you agree that to talk about the USSR as if it was only ever one thing and stayed unchanged for 70 years, rather than a society that may have been better in some ways and/or at sometimes and worse in some ways and/or at some times, is totally a-historic. Moronic even.




We caould all find things on the internet to prove that Americans prefer America to any other country, or people insisting that Israel is more tolerant than its neighbours and just wants to live in peace, or that the old days were better when kids went to school with no shoes but everyone was happy and you knew your neighbours. So what?

I remember watching interviews in 1989 with people in Poland and East Germany saying 'yeah, we don't like the political repression, but we don't want unemployment and youth crime either' and I think that's fair enough. Some things undoubtedly were better than they are now for many people in Eastern Europe. But other things were worse. Is the whole point to make a list and say 'on the whole, the Stalinist states were better/worse (delete according to inclination) than the bourgeois-democratic (if that) states?

Seems to me a much better idea is to say 'capitalism as we have it now is shit, but we're going forwards not backwards, and Stalinism was a proven failure 20 years and more ago'.

Guess what, I agree with everything you are saying and am able to keep my original beliefs. Read my posts again.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

A "socialist state" is a contradiction. Socialism is classless, while the state is an organ of class rule.

Yeah, you are right, the state is an organ of class rule, that is why the socialist state (i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat) will be the organ of proletariat rule. Do you think that the proletariat is not a class?


If you're referring to the Marxist-Leninist regimes of the 20th century (e.g. USSR, Cuba, China), then "capialist dictatorship" seems like an accurate description. Firstly, they weren't socialist, because they were experiments confined to their respective countries and weren't internationalist in nature. Secondly, they weren't even in transition to socialism, i.e., they weren't proletarian dictatorships. In their respective revolutions, the workers didn't take state power, overthrow the bourgeoisie, collectivie the means of production, or accomplish any of the other tasks essential to begin the transition to socialism.

Can you honestly be serious when you say that, for example, Albania was capitalist? Perhaps you can say (incorrectly, in my opinion) that it was not exactly the Marxist definition of a socialist state, but it sure as hell was not capitalist. And I guess when Stalin destroyed the last real remnants of the powerful bourgeoisie by ending the (necessary) New Economic Policy, he was in secret alliance with the same bourgeoisie he destroyed. And when he collectivized the means of production (i.e. colectivization of agriculture) he was not really collectivizing the means of production. Read your signature and remember me before you post such lies.




What's your point? Socialism has nothing to do with free healthcare and other measures implemented for the sole purpose of appeasing the proletariat.

I could not have said it better myself.


If you define socialism as the implementation of welfare state measures, then there ceases to be an objective way of differentiating socialism from capialism. Instead, we should define modes of production based on class relations to the means of production and the social relations among these classes. This is an objective and materialist way of differentiating between modes of production.

Finally, something we agree on.




Measures such as universal healthcare are not done out of "care for the people". The bourgeois state does not concern itself with morality but with material self-interest. Measures like this are implemented for the appeasement of the proletariat and nothing more.

Today is a good day for Marxist-Leninists and "ultra-leftists" alike. You are spot on.



What do you mean "a capialist state . . . with some socialist policies"? Socialism involves classlessness, statelessness, internationalism, and common ownership of the means of production. Capitalism involves [insert "the capitalist class oppressing the proletariat"], [insert "states in the traditional sense"], national boundaries, and private ownership of the means of production. They are completely incompatible.

Yay, I fixed it for you. You were doing good again until you came to this last paragraph!:)

[Rooster]

Yeah, you are right, the state is an organ of class rule, that is why the socialist state (i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat) will be the organ of proletariat rule. Do you think that the proletariat is not a class?

You've read that Paris Commune was the DotP and you've also read that the Paris Commune was in no way socialist. How can the DotP be socialist? Are you attempting to contradict Marx and Engels here?

[Blake's Baby]

Guess what, I agree with everything you are saying and am able to keep my original beliefs. Read my posts again.

You agree that it's moronic to try to claim that 'the USSR' was 'better' than Tsarism in all aspects through its whole history, and yet, you believe that the USSR was better than Tsarism in all aspects for its whole history?

Instead of me re-reading the posts where you disagree with yourself, the rules of logic and my understanding of language, why don't you try to explain yourself again?


Yeah, you are right, the state is an organ of class rule, that is why the socialist state (i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat) will be the organ of proletariat rule. Do you think that the proletariat is not a class? ...

Oh no, another bloody Leninist who thinks that the DotP = socialism!

Look, it's quite simple:

1 - revolutionary phase when the working class wrests power worldwide from the capitalists, but production is continued in state-capitalist manner = Dictatorship of the Proletariat (dictatorship of one class over another means we are still in class society here); we're still fighting the world civil war here, capitalism has only been suppressed locally and not worldwide;

2 - phase of re-organisation of production for need not profit after the world civil war has been won and all property collectivised and classes cease to exist = socialism or communism; which will itself be divided into;
2a) a phase when production has not yet been reorganised to fulfill all human needs, so there are still shortages - the lower phase of communism
and
2b) a phase when production has successfully been reorganised to fulfill human needs - the higher phase of communism.

That's Marx's schema and a lot of us (you know, Marxists) pretty much follow that.

[Ostrinski]

The mode of production is not determined by how much anyone cares about anyone or w.e. it's determined by relationship to the means of production etc etc etc.

Also by seizing state power the proletariat begins the process of abolishing itself. By establishing a socialist economy it finishes this process (thus there is no state under socialism).

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Did it resemble in anyway the Paris Commune that Engels described as being the DotP?

No, because Albania, as every other socialist state, had to do things differently (not just because they were Marxist-Leninist instead of proto-Marxist/anarchist). Remember how long the Paris Commune lasted for? Two months. Albania lasted for 47 years.

[Rooster]

No, because Albania, as every other socialist state, had to do things differently (not just because they were Marxist-Leninist instead of proto-Marxist/anarchist). Remember how long the Paris Commune lasted for? Two months. Albania lasted for 47 years.

Wait so


Yeah, you are right, the state is an organ of class rule, that is why the socialist state (i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat) will be the organ of proletariat rule. Do you think that the proletariat is not a class?

You meant the complete opposite here? It wasn't the DotP that Marx and Engels described as being the form that the Paris Commune had taken? Which was, let's remind everyone, in no way socialist? And this is because they were Marxist-Leninist instead of proto-Marxist/anarchist? Do you even know why Marx said that it could not be socialist?

[Ostrinski]

Yeah, you are right, the state is an organ of class rule, that is why the socialist state (i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat) will be the organ of proletariat rule. Do you think that the proletariat is not a class? Please tell me how the hell there can be a proletariat under socialism if there is no wage labor under socialism?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

You agree that it's moronic to try to claim that 'the USSR' was 'better' than Tsarism in all aspects through its whole history, and yet, you believe that the USSR was better than Tsarism in all aspects for its whole history?

Instead of me re-reading the posts where you disagree with yourself, the rules of logic and my understanding of language, why don't you try to explain yourself again?



Oh no, another bloody Leninist who thinks that the DotP = socialism!

I am almost positive that in this thread I stated that the USSR wasn't one monolithic thing and that it went through different stages and that Stalin was possibly the WORST AND MOST AUTHORITARIAN leader Russia had seen in a long time, but if we analyse the country overall, from the October Revolution until it's fall, that the Soviet Union, while having major problems, made great gains for the Russian people. It can be argued that the standard of living would have naturally increased without the USSR as a part of the natural growth of technology, but this didn't happen in Africa, the middle east, etc. etc. I am no supporter of many regimes that have claimed to represent socialism, I am not even a Leninist, but I also know that historically the USSR overall was a huge improvement from the Tsarist autocracy that existed and the current "free market paradise" that developed under Yeltsin. Again, this is an OVERALL assessment of the Soviet Union, the Tsarist autocracy, and the Russian Federation and not analyzing specific time periods compared to others.

Now, here is the part I am sure you can agree on :D I am getting sick of "defending" the Soviet Union. It makes me feel like a Stalinist:crying: So, here are some of my criticisms of the Soviet Union...enjoy.

The Soviet Union claimed socialism yet through most of it's history had no genuine workers democracy or form of workers control.

Stalin weakened the Red Army with purges while the Nazis were gearing up for war and when the Nazis did invade the Soviet Union was unprepared.

The Kronstadt rebellion was a genuine rebellion for workers control and workers democracy and was horrendously crushed by the Bolsheviks.

etc. etc.

Also, I am currently involved in 2 threads basically on this topic so if I think I said something that I did not just bare with me.

Edit: Also, it seems that you are against overall analysis of historical events. Was Marx wrong giving his overall analysis of the Paris Commune as the dotp? Is it wrong to give an overall analysis that the Soviet Union was state capitalist, deformed workers state, etc.? Should we only analyze specific events and occurrences and never put them in their overall context? Of course not, and I think you would agree. So then why do you seem to be so against it?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Aww.....the threads dead now and I was just starting to get into it :(

[Blake's Baby]

...
Edit: Also, it seems that you are against overall analysis of historical events. Was Marx wrong giving his overall analysis of the Paris Commune as the dotp? Is it wrong to give an overall analysis that the Soviet Union was state capitalist, deformed workers state, etc.? Should we only analyze specific events and occurrences and never put them in their overall context? Of course not, and I think you would agree. So then why do you seem to be so against it?

Seems, to whom?

I'm certainly in favour of historical analysis, I've been examining the Soviet Union and its failures for nearly 35 years now and I'm still learning, I have a degree in archaeology and have generally been studying history and the historical method for as long as I can remember. I love overall contexts, even better I love 'historical frameworks'. and what is the 'historical framework' of the Soviet Union?

Well, I'd argue its historical framework begins with the change in capitalism's life from being a system that, objectively, played a progressive role (against feudalism, developing means of production) - though in that time it was also horribly oppressive and damaging - to being a system that had outlived its historica usefulness and became,as marx had argued it would, a 'fetter' on the development of the productive forces.

This is the point in history when capitalism ceases to be progressive as I said because at this point (more or less, when the world market is completed in outline, when the globe has been carved up between the competeing capitalist powers) when socialism becomes a real possibility - at the begining of the 20th century. This is the historic perspective that the Communist International took in its very early congresses - 'the epoch of wars and revolutions'.

I think this epoch characterises the 20th century. A century when objectively the conditions were ripe for the establishment of socialism by the overrthrow of capitalism worldwide (even, to agree with Trotsky, 'over-ripe') but the revolution was not successful. The state that was established in Russia was the result of the historical conditions that saw its birth.

Crippled by the failure of the world revolution, scarred by its own civil war and the intevention, stymied by the failure of the Bolsheviks to comprehend the historical processes unfolding around them (I'm not going to be overharsh here, they were in unknown territory trying to make sense of a new situation) the Soviet Union could only develop as state-capitalist dictatorship, because whatever Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin's own personal views on anything, or their qualities or whatever, we do not make history in circumstances of our own chosing. Them's the breaks. The world revolution didn't happen and we can't make up for that by an effort of will.

Moving towards socialism was impossible in Russia; standing still was impossible; what exactly was possible? Nothing but state capitalism. State capitalism under the Bolsheviks, or the possibility of state capitalism under the Whites... following on from the early experiments with state capitalism under theTsar, where the government took the place of a weak bourgeoisise and sponsored industrialisation, and brought in foreign capitalists under state-sponsored contracts to develop russian industry. State capitalism was a way of 'hothousing' development for those countries that were relatively disadvantaged in the late 19th-early 20th, before being generally applied in WWI to manage production.

So there's the historical overview of the birth of the USSR.

That enough context for you?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Seems, to whom?

I'm certainly in favour of historical analysis, I've been examining the Soviet Union and its failures for nearly 35 years now and I'm still learning, I have a degree in archaeology and have generally been studying history and the historical method for as long as I can remember. I love overall contexts, even better I love 'historical frameworks'. and what is the 'historical framework' of the Soviet Union?

Well, I'd argue its historical framework begins with the change in capitalism's life from being a system that, objectively, played a progressive role (against feudalism, developing means of production) - though in that time it was also horribly oppressive and damaging - to being a system that had outlived its historica usefulness and became,as marx had argued it would, a 'fetter' on the development of the productive forces.

This is the point in history when capitalism ceases to be progressive as I said because at this point (more or less, when the world market is completed in outline, when the globe has been carved up between the competeing capitalist powers) when socialism becomes a real possibility - at the begining of the 20th century. This is the historic perspective that the Communist International took in its very early congresses - 'the epoch of wars and revolutions'.

I think this epoch characterises the 20th century. A century when objectively the conditions were ripe for the establishment of socialism by the overrthrow of capitalism worldwide (even, to agree with Trotsky, 'over-ripe') but the revolution was not successful. The state that was established in Russia was the result of the historical conditions that saw its birth.

Crippled by the failure of the world revolution, scarred by its own civil war and the intevention, stymied by the failure of the Bolsheviks to comprehend the historical processes unfolding around them (I'm not going to be overharsh here, they were in unknown territory trying to make sense of a new situation) the Soviet Union could only develop as state-capitalist dictatorship, because whatever Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin's own personal views on anything, or their qualities or whatever, we do not make history in circumstances of our own chosing. Them's the breaks. The world revolution didn't happen and we can't make up for that by an effort of will.

Moving towards socialism was impossible in Russia; standing still was impossible; what exactly was possible? Nothing but state capitalism. State capitalism under the Bolsheviks, or the possibility of state capitalism under the Whites... following on from the early experiments with state capitalism under theTsar, where the government took the place of a weak bourgeoisise and sponsored industrialisation, and brought in foreign capitalists under state-sponsored contracts to develop russian industry. State capitalism was a way of 'hothousing' development for those countries that were relatively disadvantaged in the late 19th-early 20th, before being generally applied in WWI to manage production.

So there's the historical overview of the birth of the USSR.

That enough context for you?

I agree with your analysis here completely. What I was saying is that you seemed to be arguing that I was saying that the Soviet Union didn't change in it's entire period of existence, when actually I was making an overall analysis.

[Caj]

Yeah, you are right, the state is an organ of class rule, that is why the socialist state (i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat) will be the organ of proletariat rule. Do you think that the proletariat is not a class?

Socialism is classless, while the state is an organ of class rule. Therefore, the idea of a "socialist state" is a false concept. That's not to say anything about using the state apparatus to elevate the proletariat to the level of ruling class and abolish classes (the dictatorship of the proletariat).


Can you honestly be serious when you say that, for example, Albania was capitalist? Perhaps you can say (incorrectly, in my opinion) that it was not exactly the Marxist definition of a socialist state, but it sure as hell was not capitalist. And I guess when Stalin destroyed the last real remnants of the powerful bourgeoisie by ending the (necessary) New Economic Policy, he was in secret alliance with the same bourgeoisie he destroyed. And when he collectivized the means of production (i.e. colectivization of agriculture) he was not really collectivizing the means of production. Read your signature and remember me before you post such lies.

Clearly you have no idea what constitutes capitalism from the Marxian standpoint. Marx defined modes of production based upon class relations to the means of production (MoP) and the social relations that exist between these classes. In the Marxist-Leninist regimes of the 20th century, the class relations to the MoP and the social relations that existed between these classes were indicative of a capitalist mode of production. A class of producers alienated from the MoP whose only means of survival were wages was systematically exploited by a class that controlled the MoP and appropriated surplus value from the producer class. It makes no difference that the bourgeoisie in these societies had a more intertwined relationship with the state apparatus than existed under private capitalism or that they adopted socialistic rhetoric.


I could not have said it better myself. Finally, something we agree on. Today is a good day for Marxist-Leninists and "ultra-leftists" alike. You are spot on.

Well, I appreciate your agreement, but it doesn't seem like you agree with me on these things based on what you've said before. Clearly you don't adhere to an objective, materialist, and genuinely Marxian understanding of socialism and capitalism if you believe that the Marxist-Leninist regmes of the 20th century were proletarian dictatorships, much less examples of socialism.


Yay, I fixed it for you. You were doing good again until you came to this last paragraph!:)

So you deny that socialism is classless and stateless? What is it then? National boundaries aren't a characteristic of the capitalist mode of production?