The material basis for socialist states being dishonest

[KurtFF8]

So it seems that there is a good amount of the Left that believes that states like the USSR, China, and Cuba were/are not socialist countries. So this question is for proponents of those theories (although anyone should chime in)

Let's take the USSR and East Germany for example. Both countries (as these folks say) were either "state capitalist" or some form of state that is most certainly not socialist. Yet both drilled the point in that they were constantly building socialism and were workers' states.

What would be the material basis for trying for so long to promote the idea that those states were socialist (at the "superstructural level") if their "base" was something not socialist? And why have we not really seen the same kind of thing in capitalist states?

[Ostrinski]

Well, just like in all class societies, the ruling class had an interest in pedaling to the workers the idea that the current system was their system.

[gorillafuck]

And why have we not really seen the same kind of thing in capitalist states?I don't want to respond to the whole op but in specific reference to this sentence, we did. have you ever seen the amount of capitalist parties that have the word socialist in their name?

[NewLeft]

I don't want to respond to the whole op but in specific reference to this sentence, we did. have you ever seen the amount of capitalist parties that have the word socialist in their name?
The "labour" party actually being a conservative party, it's their trick.

[KurtFF8]

Well, just like in all class societies, the ruling class had an interest in pedaling to the workers the idea that the current system was their system.


I don't want to respond to the whole op but in specific reference to this sentence, we did. have you ever seen the amount of capitalist parties that have the word socialist in their name?

Well I suppose this is the same response to both: we've never had a capitalist country claim that it was not capitalist or rather that the state was a "workers' state." In the United States, for example, the idea is promoted that workers have economic mobility i.e. the ability to no longer be a part of the working class.

The Soviet Union and East Germany (to just stick with those two) claimed that they were actively building socialism and that they were workers' states. This is quite distinct from the kind of ideology that promotes "false consciousness" in the West.

[Ostrinski]

We do have both conservative and liberal politicians that do claim that the US is socialist but I see your point, it's not the same. It has to do with the fact that the US is supposedly capitalist and the USSR and East Germany were supposedly socialist. Everyone more or less knows the US is capitalist, therefore the nature of the lie that is necessary is not that we live in a socialist society, but that socialism is not their system, but not necessarily that capitalism in the abstract is their system either, merely that the current way the economy is organized is their system. The status quo, if you will.

Same goes for East Germany and USSR and all other Communist states. Just convince the working class that this is their system and you're golden.

I think it should also be pointed out that even if the bureaucrats of these states consciously thought that they were working to build socialism, it wouldn't have mattered for whether they knew it or not they were the agents of capital.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well I suppose this is the same response to both: we've never had a capitalist country claim that it was not capitalist or rather that the state was a "workers' state." In the United States, for example, the idea is promoted that workers have economic mobility i.e. the ability to no longer be a part of the working class.

The Soviet Union and East Germany (to just stick with those two) claimed that they were actively building socialism and that they were workers' states. This is quite distinct from the kind of ideology that promotes "false consciousness" in the West.

Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany? Retained Capitalist economic relations, courted big business, but under the guise of anti-Capitalism.

[KurtFF8]

Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany? Retained Capitalist economic relations, courted big business, but under the guise of anti-Capitalism.

An interesting example indeed. Although neither claimed that they were "workers' and peasants states" which makes them distinct (in this realm of ideology) from states like the GDR.

The USSR and the socialist bloc were unique in that the claim of socialism was present. Perhaps this claim itself is one of the things that has given difficult to some folks trying to apply a Left critique or praise of the states?

[Tim Cornelis]

Well I suppose this is the same response to both: we've never had a capitalist country claim that it was not capitalist or rather that the state was a "workers' state."

If we accept that the Soviet Union, PR China, DPRK, etc. are/were state-capitalist then we do have capitalist countries claiming to be socialist. Of course we also have Portugal which is constitutionally socialist, as well as India, Sri Lanka, Guyana, and Venezuela.

But I don't see why you have a problem accepting that state-capitalist countries claimed they were socialist, by their own reasoning they were.


The Soviet Union and East Germany (to just stick with those two) claimed that they were actively building socialism and that they were workers' states. This is quite distinct from the kind of ideology that promotes "false consciousness" in the West.

Because by their own reasoning they were socialist.

[Rooster]

The Soviet Union and East Germany (to just stick with those two) claimed that they were actively building socialism and that they were workers' states. This is quite distinct from the kind of ideology that promotes "false consciousness" in the West.

Actively building socialism and being socialist are two different things. How do you build socialism? That's a process of capitalism. This was especially true of countries like Russia where it was largely a peasant state.

[Tim Finnegan]

Well I suppose this is the same response to both: we've never had a capitalist country claim that it was not capitalist or rather that the state was a "workers' state."
Yes we have. That was exactly what the Labour government claimed in Britain during their 1945-51 government. "We are the masters now" and all that crap.

[KurtFF8]

If we accept that the Soviet Union, PR China, DPRK, etc. are/were state-capitalist then we do have capitalist countries claiming to be socialist. Of course we also have Portugal which is constitutionally socialist, as well as India, Sri Lanka, Guyana, and Venezuela.

But I don't see why you have a problem accepting that state-capitalist countries claimed they were socialist, by their own reasoning they were.

Well that would require accepting that they were/are "state-capitalist" which is quite a problematic term in the context of Marxian analysis. But that argument has been done to death and is out of the scope of this thread


Yes we have. That was exactly what the Labour government claimed in Britain during their 1945-51 government. "We are the masters now" and all that crap.

But did they ever claim that the UK was a socialist state?

[Tim Finnegan]

But did they ever claim that the UK was a socialist state?
Not in so many words, because they were Fabians rather than Marxist-Leninists and so didn't make that theoretical distinction, but they certainly claimed that Britain was, if not socialist, then on its way to socialism, and that a socialist government sat at the helm.

[Psy]

An interesting example indeed. Although neither claimed that they were "workers' and peasants states" which makes them distinct (in this realm of ideology) from states like the GDR.

The USSR and the socialist bloc were unique in that the claim of socialism was present. Perhaps this claim itself is one of the things that has given difficult to some folks trying to apply a Left critique or praise of the states?
Well Nazi Germany kind of did, in their propaganda Marxism was evil because Marx was a Jew thus part of the imaginary "Jewish conspiracy" and Goebbels incoherent ramblings did repeatedly call Nazi Germany a workers state though Goebbels only phrased the class issue as a conflict between Jews and workers.

This is the reason you have idiots saying "the Nazis were communists" as they go through Goebbels ramblings and find mention the Nazi's working for the liberation of the German working class. They ignore in the same ramblings that by capitalists Goebbels means Jew and by worker he means anyone that labors including the bourgeoisie (as long as they are not Jewish), the Nazi Germany was a anti-semitic capitalist state wrapped in the language and imagery of class struggle.

So Nazi Germany really is a good example of capitalist state pretending to be against capitalism.

[cb9's_unity]

The more I think about it, the less I care about whether the USSR or China or Cuba can be labelled socialist or not. Even if you could find a flawless objective measurement with which to prove those countries substructures were socialist it wouldn't necessarily mean that they would then have to be critically acceptable by all socialists. I have my doubts that that measurement exists, but we should accept that socialism contains superstructural qualifications as well. So even if capitalist political-economic class stratification no longer exists, it doesn't mean much if the means of production and society as a whole aren't being controlled through democratic means.

The project of socialism has significant subjective and ethical dimensions. Simply because socialist analysis understands the reach of economics more than other ideologies doesn't mean it restricts itself entirely to economic materialism. A seemingly strong material foundation means absolutely nothing if it doesn't result in a better subjective existence for the people within it.

The material basis for the USSR (at least in its Stalinist period) and East German claim of being socialist is that they wanted to restrict socialism entirely to a material basis. Their clear lack of a democratic basis and democratic freedoms gave them incentive to make socialism one dimensional. To make it only concern the objective prevented people from seeing their own dull subjective existence as being opposed to socialist principles.

Either way, one could simply ask what the material basis is for capitalist states to call themselves democratic. At least in the U.S. many founders of the nation openly despised the conception of democracy. However, changing the meaning of a noble term to fit less than noble material reality is just another way to mask the true nature of that material reality. There should need to be very little explanation of why people lie.

[commieathighnoon]

I like how the OP asks a question, and then repeatedly spams all replies with goalpost-shifting that basically amounts to, well, no that doesn't count, that's not Marxist-Leninist enough.

Tell me, Kurt, what was the material basis of the Burmese military junta nationalizing everything, subjecting it to central planning, and calling it the "Burmese Road to Socialism"? Or perhaps you think a bunch of Bhuddhist militarists stumbled into a "workers' state," because they called it that.

Have you read nothing of Marx's polemics against his erstwhile "socialist" opponents, from 1840s to his death in the 1880s? He repeatedly berates it for being at best misleading the working-class, and at worst some kind of bastard extension of capitalism masquerading as socialism.

[KurtFF8]

I like how the OP asks a question, and then repeatedly spams all replies with goalpost-shifting that basically amounts to, well, no that doesn't count, that's not Marxist-Leninist enough.

Tell me, Kurt, what was the material basis of the Burmese military junta nationalizing everything, subjecting it to central planning, and calling it the "Burmese Road to Socialism"? Or perhaps you think a bunch of Bhuddhist militarists stumbled into a "workers' state," because they called it that.

Have you read nothing of Marx's polemics against his erstwhile "socialist" opponents, from 1840s to his death in the 1880s? He repeatedly berates it for being at best misleading the working-class, and at worst some kind of bastard extension of capitalism masquerading as socialism.

If you would like to have a serious discussion, I'm totally down. But your condescending remarks here (and off topic irrelevant jabs on another thread) make me think that you're more interested in cliche sectarian battles than actually engaging with the question.

[Rafiq]

What would be the material basis for trying for so long to promote the idea that those states were socialist (at the "superstructural level") if their "base" was something not socialist? And why have we not really seen the same kind of thing in capitalist states?

All Bourgeois states have some kind of obscure Ideological mystification behind the rule of capital. Whether it be Liberalism, Fascism, or in this case 20th century Communism.

Ideological justification always follows the rule of capital, such is a necessity for the ruling class. Anyway, are our societies not building toward "Better Democracy" or "Democracy" in general, though most obviously anyone who is an idiot knows this is not the case?

The mystification are not always valid, my friend.