Does any country currently practice Socialism?

[Soomie]

I've come to understand that the USSR, China, North Korea, etc. are considered State Capitalist. I'm not so sure about Cuba... I haven't been able to find much on it, and I'm not well versed on its economy since it's a country that is rarely acknowledged outside of the Cold War here in the US. So, my question is, does any country in the world currently practice Socialism in some form?

[Let's Get Free]

Capitalism is the system that exists in every nation on the planet, including Cuba. There can be no "socialism in one country."

[RedMaterialist]

I've come to understand that the USSR, China, North Korea, etc. are considered State Capitalist. I'm not so sure about Cuba... I haven't been able to find much on it, and I'm not well versed on its economy since it's a country that is rarely acknowledged outside of the Cold War here in the US. So, my question is, does any country in the world currently practice Socialism in some form?

I think western europe (sweden, finland, etc.) practices a weak form of socialism in the welfare state. If you look at Marx's list of demands in the Communist Manifesto, a lot of them are now in practice in the welfare state: free education, government ownership of highways, rail lines, voting rights for all men and women, no child labor, heavy progressive tax rate. In addition you now have free health care and a national pension scheme in western europe.

Obviously western europe is not socialist, but it is a lot further down the road to socialism than in 1929.

[RedMaterialist]

Capitalism is the system that exists in every nation on the planet, including Cuba. There can be no "socialism in one country."

Stalin proved you can have socialism in one country. It was a barracks socialism as Trotsky predicted, but it was socialism in one country.

[Philosophos]

Ofcourse there is... Aren't you watching the news? Greece has the most socialistic system EVER!!! :tt1::tt1::tt1::tt1::tt1::tt1:

[JPSartre12]

Redshifted makes a good point. There are no countries that are socialist, but there are those that do contain trace elements. We see some of these in the welfare-state progressivism that exists in Scandinavia (Sweden, Norway, Finland) ... and I'd throw in Denmark and the Netherlands, because I have a friend from the Netherlands and he says that they look at west/south Europe with a certain degree of disdain for not being "progressive enough".

They certainly have good healthcare, education, and so on, but as all of us socialists (and our communist and anarchist comrades, of course!) know, enacting those sort of reforms doesn't magically bring about socialism.

We can see elements of socialism in single-payer healthcare, support for workers' collective and co-ops, local democratic decision-making, peaceful negotiations, and so on. But there is no country that we can say is socialist (let alone communist!), because every nation on Earth is capitalist.


Capitalism is the system that exists in every nation on the planet, including Cuba. There can be no "socialism in one country."

Exactly. This is the primary problem that I have with Marxist-Leninism, is the idea of "socialism in one country". Socialism is going to be international, and it's going to be revolutionary.

[Soomie]

Right, see I thought that certain parts of Europe had Socialist programs in place, but you can't really say for sure that they're there yet. Pure Socialism can only come from the proletariat, not government. No offense to Stalinists, but I really don't believe in having Socialism in one country. I'm still researching that time period and area, but as far as I know they were only able to reach a very primitive stage of Socialism and one reason they collapsed was from trying to move from feudalism to communism (capitalism needs to be in place for the latter to exist). However, this move to Socialism did bring them out of a very bad time and establish a better economy for them. I don't think that Communism can exist in just one country. It's too difficult for it to compete with Capitalism. You just can't have both in the world and expect it to function. Communism has to come from the revolt of all of the workers worldwide. One country can start it, of course, but other countries will need to follow lest it collapse as soon as it forms.

[Soomie]

Capitalism is the system that exists in every nation on the planet, including Cuba. There can be no "socialism in one country."

So, Cuba is Capitalist, then?

[#FF0000]

So, Cuba is Capitalist, then?

Yes

[Blake's Baby]

Britain is just as 'socialist' as Scandinavia and Netherlands - we have state-run healthcare, state-subsidised transport and television, and formerly had state-owned coal, steel, shipbuilding, railway, buses and even banks - and we're still America's go-to fuck-buddies when POTUS wants to wage a new war.

Nationalised industry and services does not make an economy 'socialist'. No-one in Europe thinks that Europe is 'socialist'.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Capitalism is the system that exists in every nation on the planet, including Cuba. There can be no "socialism in one country."

So then what happens when the proletariat overthrows the bourgeois in one country?

[Blake's Baby]

It establishes the dictatorship of the proletariat (which is not socialism either). But that's not what happened in any country where 'the Party' organised a coup and seized control of the state and became a new state-capitalist bureaucracy with a red flag, that was just a new dictatorship of capital.

[Zukunftsmusik]

So then what happens when the proletariat overthrows the bourgeois in one country?

they hold the fort and wait for/help the rest, or at least very large chunks, of the proletariat to do the same

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Stalin proved you can have socialism in one country. It was a barracks socialism as Trotsky predicted, but it was socialism in one country.

Well, there you have the reason why russia isn't socialist anymore. Communism in just one country just is not sustainable.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

they hold the fort and wait for/help the rest, or at least very large chunks, of the proletariat to do the same

And what should they do in the mean time? How is this different from Socialism in One Country from a practical perspective, isn't building socialism in one country "holding the fort"

[Blake's Baby]

1 - it's not socialism, so no;
2 - it wasn't the working class doing it anyway.

So, what the Stalinist regimes were doing was building 'capitalism in one country' = national capitalism = state capitalism.

What they should do in the meantime is try to defend the gains they've made, organise production to prevent people dying, and do their best to help the working class elsewhere to launch their own revolutions. Not, for instance, suppress the Kronstadt Commune and the Makhnovists, collude in the massacre of Turkish communists, sign secret deals with Germany, hand the Shanghai Commune over to the KMT, etc.

[Zukunftsmusik]

And what should they do in the mean time? How is this different from Socialism in One Country from a practical perspective, isn't building socialism in one country "holding the fort"

No. When the Soviet Union "built socialism in one country", that is, when that idea or slogan was "in the wind", the international revolutionary period was already over, and the SU was isolated. SIOC was a politics of defeat, during a period of isolation, and was therefore marked by a rise in nationalism and chauvinism etc., because that suited the political situation which was no longer revolutionary.

[Omsk]

do their best to help the working class elsewhere to launch their own revolutions


Which they did, in Albania, Yugoslavia, among other places. Sorry, i don't have time for an actual debate, but i just wanted to correct this short line. Goodbye.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

What they should do in the meantime is try to defend the gains they've made, organise production to prevent people dying, and do their best to help the working class elsewhere to launch their own revolutions. Not, for instance, suppress the Kronstadt Commune and the Makhnovists, collude in the massacre of Turkish communists, sign secret deals with Germany, hand the Shanghai Commune over to the KMT, etc.

Its funny, since I've read a bit of Stalin I know how much ironic it is that you are advocating what is essentially a return to Stalinism.

What you are advising, is the theory of productive forces, which states that in order to bring about the conditions for world socialism, the productive forces (industry) must be increased but socialism it's self is to be put off to another day. It's also funny how you seem to think that I defend Stalin, I'm a Maoist, I have no vested interest in defending the mistakes of Stalin.

Building Socialism in one country, as opposed to the revisionist "theory of productive forces" that Stalinists propose and that Trots propose even though they don't know it, means that the means of production should be socialized. Yes we need to build industry, but we need to also establish the socialist mode of production and to build a socialist conscience in the working class, while also giving them the flexibility to countuine the class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat and by assuming that the vanguard party it's self is prone to bourgeois infection and is yet another arena for class struggle, if not something that should be abolished in the early days of socialism

Self criticism: I realize that this could have been written more respectfully and I apologize, I will fix it soon.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

No. When the Soviet Union "built socialism in one country", that is, when that idea or slogan was "in the wind", the international revolutionary period was already over, and the SU was isolated. SIOC was a politics of defeat, during a period of isolation, and was therefore marked by a rise in nationalism and chauvinism etc., because that suited the political situation which was no longer revolutionary.

Again, I do not defend Stalin. But you have to realize that a revolutionary wave does not always guarantee victory. You need to start building up a base to launch the next revolution from (not in a social-imperalist manner, but I mean in practical terms of assisting international revolutionaries who need guns and tanks). The reason why Stalin said the wind of revolutionary period was over was because it was over; it failed. And that's why he built the base up for the next one. (Not that his foreign policy was good from a practical view, I am merely speaking from a theoretical standpoint)

[Let's Get Free]

So then what happens when the proletariat overthrows the bourgeois in one country?

I think that with the growth of a genuine socialist movement wanting to establish a non-market stateless alternative to capitalism in all its forms, the probability is that, should such a movement grow in one part of the world, it will almost axiomatically be growing elsewhere too. Ideas cannot be contained within national boundaries. Therefore the problem of coordinating the changeoever to a socialist society on a global scale will be far less daunting than is commonly supposed.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I think that with the growth of a genuine socialist movement wanting to establish a non-market stateless alternative to capitalism in all its forms, the probability is that, should such a movement grow in one part of the world, it will almost axiomatically be growing elsewhere too. Ideas cannot be contained within national boundaries. Therefore the problem of coordinating the changeoever to a socialist society on a global scale will be far less daunting than is commonly supposed.

If this was true then we'd already have acheived communism

[Let's Get Free]

If this was true then we'd already have acheived communism

How many genuine socialist revolutions wanting to establish a non-market stateless alternative to capitalism in all its forms have there been in the last century?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

How many genuine socialist revolutions wanting to establish a non-market stateless alternative to capitalism in all its forms have there been in the last century?

Erm, the Russian Revolution for one, the Chinese Revolution for second.

[Let's Get Free]

Erm, the Russian Revolution for one, the Chinese Revolution for second.

Nope and nope.

[Blake's Baby]

Its funny, since I've read a bit of Stalin I know how much ironic it is that you are advocating what is essentially a return to Stalinism...

No, really, not.

You fail to understand that Stalin and Mao were the leaders of parties that administered the state. As such, both needed to be overthrown by thhe revolution of the woring class. Pseudo-socialist hacks who presided over mass starvation and butchery, both of them. Maoism is Stalinism (as is Castroism, Hoxhaism etc).

'We' don't 'build a socialist conscience in the proletariat'. That kind of shit is exactly the elitist bureaucratic poison that 'we' call substitutionism - it's a cancer and the revolutionary working class will have to root it out next time, with guns very likely. The revolution is not the property of the Party, the state is not the property of the Party, and if you start to think it is, then I think it would be fair enough to label that 'the counter-revolution'.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Nope and nope.

And here we go with the sectarianism again. Do you think that if they simply had the right theory, then the revolution would spread world wide? No. Any revolution can have a wave, and likewise, any revolution can be suppressed.

[Let's Get Free]

And here we go with the sectarianism again. Do you think that if they simply had the right theory, then the revolution would spread world wide? No. Any revolution can have a wave, and likewise, any revolution can be suppressed.

Nothing to do with sectarianism here, but it'd be foolish to suggest that the majority of people in Russia and China wanted and understood what a wageless, moneyless, stateless society would entail.

In both Russia and China the revolutions had to solve the same political and economic tasks. They had to destroy feudalism and to free the productive forces in agriculture from the fetters in which existing relations bound them. They also had to prepare a basis for industrial development. They had to destroy absolutism and replace it by a form of government and by a state machine that would allow solutions to the existing economic problems. The economic and political problems were those of a bourgeois revolution; that is, of a revolution that was to make capitalism the dominant mode of production.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

No, really, not.

You fail to understand that Stalin and Mao were the leaders of parties that administered the state. As such, both needed to be overthrown by thhe revolution of the woring class. Pseudo-socialist hacks who presided over mass starvation and butchery, both of them. Maoism is Stalinism (as is Castroism, Hoxhaism etc).

'We' don't 'build a socialist conscience in the proletariat'. That kind of shit is exactly the elitist bureaucratic poison that 'we' call substitutionism - it's a cancer and the revolutionary working class will have to root it out next time, with guns very likely. The revolution is not the property of the Party, the state is not the property of the Party, and if you start to think it is, then I think it would be fair enough to label that 'the counter-revolution'.

Ugh, conflating Maoism with Stalinism, I'm not even going to attempt to refute that, it just goes to show that you haven't tried to understand any contemporary Maoism.

The rest of this post is just empty rhetoric. You don't want to build a socialist conscience of the proletariat? You mean that you don't want them to understand socialism so they can overthrow revisionists when they see them? Because that is what I and Mao mean when we advocate the creation of a socialist consciousness. All I was advocating was that we ought to disseminatie Marxism to the masses so they can understand what we mean by the word "substitutionist". Please stop arguing with me using empty rhetoric

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Nothing to do with sectarianism here, but it'd be foolish to suggest that the majority of people in Russia and China wanted and understood what a wageless, moneyless, stateless society would entail.


How on earth can you suggest that the Boschelvic party manged to defeat the Russian Empire, the White Army, about 2-3 foreign interventions, and the Anarchists, without popular support. If the population hated them so much, then why didn't they just organize a bigger party to fight them. Yes there was some instances of peasent rebellion, that's just the truth. But it's foolish to suggest that the working class couldn't prevent the Russian Revolution if they tried, because after all the communists just barely won the civil war. The same goes for the Chinese Revolution. They fought the Japanese, Warlords, and the Nationalists backed by foreign capitalists. Do you think that these things are easy? Do you understand the practical implications of what you are suggesting or do you simply want to believe that these movements didn't reflect the will of the people just because you don't like them. You can disagree with the people, but that doesn't give you the right to distort facts. And also with the idea of wanting a stateless, moneyless society, Marx himself said that the peasants were in the best position to understand what communism is because their lifestyle is reminiscent of what communism is like. Sure the whole lack of industrialization is hard, but that doesn't mean that the peasants don't know anything about communism, because they have experienced it more than any one else.

[Ostrinski]

Of course Mao was a Stalinist. What an incredible thing to say. We define Stalinism as a particular social form and political culture of the Soviet Union under the rule of Stalin as well as the regimes that replicated it such as the PRC under Mao.

[Let's Get Free]

Mao was his own type of Stalinists. The Stalinist "model" established in China in the 1950s was essentially the Soviet model, adapted to a country with an even more overwhelming peasant majority than was the case in Russia.

[prolcon]

There are many countries with socialist and Communist parties in power. I don't think it is all that conducive to the struggle of the proletariat to assign these countries to the categories of "socialist" or "capitalist;" things are rarely ever that clear. No country in the world currently practices production for use, as all countries in the world must compete in the global capitalist system. That said, many "socialist" countries, while diverted from a "perfect" Marxist path toward socialism due to the historical conditions of their regions, have made genuine strides towards worker power and more just societies. To dismiss these endeavors as wholly capitalistic has not once ever advanced the struggle of the global working classes. While many things are indefensible, like the constitutional autocracy of the DPRK for instance, we need to understand what works and what doesn't; it's that old adage about babies and bath water. To say you must either be for or against a certain country as "socialist" is to grossly oversimplify the issues facing socialism around the world.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Mao was his own type of Stalinists. The Stalinist "model" established in China in the 1950s was essentially the Soviet model, adapted to a country with an even more overwhelming peasant majority than was the case in Russia.

Nope, let's just drop the issue. If you refuse to understand what Maoism is and you just slap the label "Stalinism" on it then I refuse to accept your opinion on Maoism as valid. You have never read anything about China so I don't see any reason to debate this.


Of course Mao was a Stalinist. What an incredible thing to say. We define Stalinism as a particular social form and political culture of the Soviet Union under the rule of Stalin as well as the regimes that replicated it such as the PRC under Mao.

I expect better from you. I am earnestly disappointed by this post. At least you have read on the subject of the USSR before you call Stalin a capitalist.



Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh?


Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist
~Mao Zedong

[Let's Get Free]

How on earth can you suggest that the Boschelvic party manged to defeat the Russian Empire, the White Army, about 2-3 foreign interventions, and the Anarchists, without popular support.
It's true the Bolsheviks initially had popular support, but for what? Not for building a wageless, stateless, moneyless society. It was for their populist reform program- land peace and bread and all that, which are noble sounding things, but have little to do with socialism by themselves.


If the population hated them so much, then why didn't they just organize a bigger party to fight them.
Because the Bolsheviks banned all opposition parties. There was a total of one democratic election after the October Revolution, and when the Bolsheviks lost, they sent in the Red Guard and closed the Constituent Assembly. This happened before the Civil War had started.


Sure the whole lack of industrialization is hard, but that doesn't mean that the peasants don't know anything about communism, because they have experienced it more than any one else.
The lack of industrialization isn't of primary concern. If the majority of the population do not want a moneyless, wageless, stateless society (Marxian style socialism) then there cannot be a socialist revolution, since socialism cannot be imposed downward on a population who neither want or understand it.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

It's true the Bolsheviks initially had popular support, but for what? Not for building a wageless, stateless, moneyless society. It was for their populist reform program- land peace and bread and all that, which are noble sounding things, but have little to do with socialism by themselves.


The lack of industrialization isn't of primary concern. If the majority of the population do not want a moneyless, wageless, stateless society (Marxian style socialism) then there cannot be a socialist revolution, since socialism cannot be imposed downward on a population who neither want or understand it.

We aren't going to win over the working class with abstract rantings about socialism, we need to provide them with a real programme that answers their needs. The Bolsheviks did this, and the next revolution will win by doing this.

And this is the point of making a socialist consciousness. Yes we need to make the majority of people see the benefits of socialism, and the only way to do that is by bringing them those benefits. Education comes second afterwards

After all, I don't think the majority of people agreed to capitalism as a replacement for feudalism, but I don't think anyone would advocate a return to feudalism

[Let's Get Free]

We aren't going to win over the working class with abstract rantings about socialism, we need to provide them with a real programme that answers their needs. The Bolsheviks did this, and the next revolution will win by doing this.

And this is the point of making a socialist consciousness. Yes we need to make the majority of people see the benefits of socialism, and the only way to do that is by bringing them those benefits. Education comes second afterwards

A new form of capitalism will inevitably be created as happened in the Soviet Union should it be the case that a majority of workers are still not socialist minded. That clearly applied in the case of Russia 1917, as in China.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

A new form of capitalism will inevitably be created as happened in the Soviet Union should it be the case that a majority of workers are still not socialist minded. That clearly applied in the case of Russia 1917, as in China.

Capitalism was created without the consent of the people, and yet if you ask anyone today which system they prefer, they will choose capitalism. This is not because they are brainwashed, rather, it is because people have a good understanding of their rational self-interest.

Likewise, when socialism is established people will forget the need for capitalism.


And it is incorrect to say that the Chinese working class did not have a socialist consciousness. During the early 60's Deng tried to restore capitalism in China and he was met with the Cultural Revolution. Sure, it only re-established socialism temporarily but the fact that the Chinese working class pulled off Trotsky's wet dream means that clearly they had an idea what socialism meant.

[Let's Get Free]

Capitalism was created without the consent of the people, and yet if you ask anyone today which system they prefer, they will choose capitalism. This is not because they are brainwashed, rather, it is because people have a good understanding of their rational self-interest.

Likewise, when socialism is established people will forget the need for capitalism.

I'm afraid this doesn't make any sense.



And it is incorrect to say that the Chinese working class did not have a socialist consciousness. During the early 60's Deng tried to restore capitalism in China and he was met with the Cultural Revolution. Sure, it only re-established socialism temporarily but the fact that the Chinese working class pulled off Trotsky's wet dream means that clearly they had an idea what socialism meant.

The 'Cultural Revolution' was a faction fight within the ruling elite that got a bit out of hand. Mao was being pushed out of power, and attempted to mobilize 'the masses' behind a his faction within the state.
Mao had lost most of his credibility after the disastrous "Great Leap Forward, and in an attempt to regain it, claimed that the Party and the Red army had become a capitalized aristocracy (which it basically had) and needed to be purged by the youth of the nation. It was a cynical populist coup that not only wiped out all opposing politicians, but also all opposing ideologies. Countless books and religious scrolls were burned as heretical to Mao Tse Tung-Thought. This was a repetition of the Chinese tradition of the Emperors of the Qin and Han dynasties who destroyed the works of Confucius and Lao tzu upon their rise to power, as a way of censoring heresy. The 'Cultural Revolution' was nothing more than an exploded reactionary cult more resembling of fascism than communism.

[Prinskaj]

Capitalism was created without the consent of the people, and yet if you ask anyone today which system they prefer, they will choose capitalism. This is not because they are brainwashed, rather, it is because people have a good understanding of their rational self-interest.

Likewise, when socialism is established people will forget the need for capitalism.
Turn down the blanquism, it's starting to sound kinda fascist.
You do understand that the revolution is about the empowerment of the working class, right? Which doesn't exactly happen when you dismantle all influence over the political process and establishing a new dictatorship of capital over them.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Ugh, conflating Maoism with Stalinism, I'm not even going to attempt to refute that, it just goes to show that you haven't tried to understand any contemporary Maoism.

This is shit, to be blunt.

Maoism is a form of Stalinism. It agrees with the idea of "Socialism in One Country" (which is much different than what you made it out to be in the thread), agrees that generalized commodity production would exist within socialism, and many other anti-Marxist things. You described the doctrine of Socialism in One Country as "building socialism in one country" but this is wrong. The Third Period showed a theory of socialism in one country that was "building as much of socialism within the material conditions present as much as possible" while the official Stalinist (or Marxist-Leninist if you like) theory claims socialism is achievable in one country (building vs. achieving). Now, I think that both theories have problems, but there is an obvious difference and change in the Third Periodist concept and the official Stalinist line.

I would suggest that you read some critiques of your own tendency.

http://libcom.org/history/notes-towards-critique-maoism

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/094_china_part3.html


I expect better from you. I am earnestly disappointed by this post. At least you have read on the subject of the USSR before you call Stalin a capitalist.

You "expected better" from the user? Why would you be disappointed by the post? Many socialists believe that China, the Soviet Union, etc. were not "communist states" (an oxymoron).


So then what happens when the proletariat overthrows the bourgeois in one country?

They establish their class dictatorship. Hopefully, they have linked up with revolutionary elements in other countries, specifically advanced countries like Japan, Great Britain, etc. and should introduce steps to get rid of capitalist society. Socialism is a stateless, classless, and moneyless society, and neither China nor Russia represented such a society. While I would argue that early Bolshevik Russia was a dictatorship of the proletariat, by the time of the crushing of the Kronstadt sailors that was pretty much gone and China was in no way, shape, or form a proletarian dictatorship (as the articles I linked to note).


We aren't going to win over the working class with abstract rantings about socialism

The problem is that socialism IS a wageless, stateless, moneyless society. Advocating anything else is not advocating socialism. That isn't an abstract ranting about socialism but an acknowledgement of what socialism is.


And it is incorrect to say that the Chinese working class did not have a socialist consciousness. During the early 60's Deng tried to restore capitalism in China and he was met with the Cultural Revolution. Sure, it only re-established socialism temporarily but the fact that the Chinese working class pulled off Trotsky's wet dream means that clearly they had an idea what socialism meant.

1. The Cultural Revolution wasn't an attack on Deng's "anti-socialism" but a fight between various sections of the Chinese ruling class.

2. It didn't re-establish socialism or any form of proletariat rule over the state.




Before you make the final decision to jump straight into Maoism, you should look into it more. There are some very counter-revolutionary theories in Maoism, such as New Democracy which advocates class-collaboration with the bourgeoisie (typical Stalinism).

[Brosa Luxemburg]

The 'Cultural Revolution' was a faction fight within the ruling elite that got a bit out of hand. Mao was being pushed out of power, and attempted to mobilize 'the masses' behind a his faction within the state.
Mao had lost most of his credibility after the disastrous "Great Leap Forward, and in an attempt to regain it, claimed that the Party and the Red army had become a capitalized aristocracy (which it basically had) and needed to be purged by the youth of the nation. It was a cynical populist coup that not only wiped out all opposing politicians, but also all opposing ideologies. Countless books and religious scrolls were burned as heretical to Mao Tse Tung-Thought. This was a repetition of the Chinese tradition of the Emperors of the Qin and Han dynasties who destroyed the works of Confucius and Lao tzu upon their rise to power, as a way of censoring heresy. The 'Cultural Revolution' was nothing more than an exploded reactionary cult more resembling of fascism than communism.

You are completely correct (although, I would refrain from throwing the word "fascism" around).

[Yuppie Grinder]

The Nation State is unique to the mercantile economic epoch. It did not exist beforehand, and it will not after. The Nation State as a model of political organization only makes sense if you're trying to create a sustainable state representative of and accountable to the whole of its citizenship, an idealist, liberal notion divorced from the superstructural reality of the state. Communists seek to establish a class dictatorship that exists as a tool for organizing a superstructure without a state. It exists to abolish class, and without class there can be no state.

[prolcon]

The Nation State is unique to the mercantile economic epoch. It did not exist beforehand, and it will not after. The Nation State as a model of political organization only makes sense if you're trying to create a sustainable state representative of and accountable to the whole of its citizenship, an idealist, liberal notion divorced from the superstructural reality of the state. Communists seek to establish a class dictatorship that exists as a tool for organizing a superstructure without a state. It exists to abolish class, and without class there can be no state.

Keep in mind that the transition isn't likely to end up a clean cut. The state "withers away" as political administration becomes obsolete. Political administration is inextricably linked with coercive, militant protection of property. Where power is seized by the working class, it isn't unreasonable to expect that it's challenged by the bourgeois hegemony in capitalist regions; the state persists as a means of protecting the gains of the revolution. The problem is that socialistic states eventually come to reflect the pressures of global capitalism in their character: trends toward market policy; centralized, militant social administration; and, ultimately, the restoration of capitalist relations of production. The key, then, has always been in global socialist revolution, but the way to approach world revolution isn't clear; socialist countries can't "export" revolution to powerful Western countries like the United States of America without provoking a destructive war, and such "exportation" to weaker countries strikes me as having an imperialist character.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I'l get to the rest of this post at some other time, I have to study for a test tommorow, so maybe I will have some time tommorow. I'll just get to the thicket of your post.

[/QUOTE]


This is shit, to be blunt.

Do you even have a clue what Marxist-Leninist-Maoism is? Do you even know what Stalinism is? Did you know that Stalin tried to set up a Stalinist state in China with Sheng Shicai as it's puppet leader and then tried to purge Mao and his sympathizers? No? Well let me fill you in on a few other things

Stalinists promote the Popular front in the face of imperialism and fascism. Under this form of front. Communists liquidate themselves into bourgeois forces much like how they did in Spain, due to the arguement that opposing fascism is more important or that underdevloped countries can not establish socialism so they might as well tail the bourgeois. Stalin tried to convince Mao to practice entryism into the Nationalist party and they purged his ass, from that point since Maoists reject the popular front in favor of the united front, and since the whole idea of a "popular front" was based in the euro-centric idea that socialism can not be established in the third world, we reject this attitude as defeatist and hold that socialist revolutions should be held wherever they can be, regardless of the difficulties. Yes it might be impossible, but it is better to try and fail then to never try.

Stalin theorized that class struggle continues under socialism, but all he said was that foreign spies might be able to enter the soviet union and sabotage it from within. His solution was that the vanguard was the only impenetrable fortress against reaction and that an iron fist was the only way to prevent counter revolution. A few years after he died the Soviet Union began capitalist reforms so Mao realized that Stalin was wrong. Mao theorized that the bourgeois still have a hold over society due to the prevalence of bourgeois ideology that lingers on from capitalism, and that as long as socialism remains confined to one country capitalist relations still exist and therefore can nurture a new bourgeois (for example, the bourgeois are the most educated class and therefore tend to take the skilled labor jobs such as lawyers, doctors, teachers, and ect, and they can weed themselves into the fabric of the buerocracy). Mao realized that the vanguard was incapable of leading the revolution due to it's tendency towards corruption and that only the masses themselves could finish the tasks of the revolution through the use of grassroot class struggle against the bourgeois. Here is a good article contrasting the Maoism with Blaquism (in this case represented by Cambodia, even though they are not Stalinists) http://www.aworldtowin.org/back_issues/1999-25/PolPot_eng25.htm

Additionally, Stalinists believe in electoral politics and participating in bourgeois governments while Marxist-Leninist-Maoists refuse this idea and believe that only through armed revolution can socialism be achieved, and that electoral politics in any form is inherently reactionary. Additionally, we oppose insurrectionary tactics due to the fact that they have not been successful since the Russian revolution, and instead we argue that Guerrilla warfare is the most realistic path towards revolution.

Now in regards to Socialism in one country, come on now, your just going off of technicalities. Is "building" and "achieving" really a difference that is worth getting riled up about? I mean seriously, calm down for a minute and realize that you're just talking semantics. And no one pretends that Communism can be achieved in one country, we simply interpret socialism as a separate and lower stage of communism that can be achieved in a national context. But even on this Maoists and Stalin have a different view point. Stalin upheld the revisionist Theory of Productive Forces, which states that the primary purpose of the state is to improve industry and that the socialization of the mode of production is indesirble. While Maoists agree that it is important to improve production and industry, we also believe that Stalin was wrong on this one and that the Socialization of the mode of production should take place as soon as possible to maintain the socialist project.

There are more differences, many, many more differences that I can discuss at another time. but this isn't the point. The point is that you called me a Stalinist. I am not a Stalinist, I have never expressed any favor towards his theoretical system nor have I attempted to defend his errors. Why do I defend socialism in one country? Because it was the best way forward. This is not a matter of ideology, it is a matter of material condition. If the revolution is constrained to one country then you must begin to build socialism in one country. Anything else is either idealist, anti-materalist, or defeatist. After all, it wasn't just the result of Stalin being a "Stalinist", it was a result of historical conditions. Do you think you would have done differently in Stalin's shoes? Well if you do then you are wrong, because it is material condition that determined socialism in one country.

Likewise, I will defend Stalin against factual inaccuracy and lies. Why do I do this? It is because facts, above all else, are sacred. They are holy. They are the god which I bow down before in humility. It does not matter who is being slandered, I will defend them, be it Trotsky, Kaufsky, Pol-Pol, or Rosa Luxemburg. You on the otherhand have shown yourself to be a deceitful person. You have shown me through your cruel accusation of me being a Stalinist that you do not care for what is true and what is untrue and that you simply wish to accuse things you dislike of whatever you wish to because you dislike them. This is not the proper way to behave in a debate. Right now you are being rude to me, and I do not accuse you of being a fascist. Why? Because you are
objectively not fascist. This is not a matter for debate, we can not interpret this one way or another. You are not a fascist, and no amount of name calling and slander will ever make you a fascist. Likewise, I am not a Stalinist. This is not a matter that is up for debate. If you call me a Stalinist, you are wrong, and in this matter there are two forms of being wrong. In one case you simply do not know the differences, which would make you ignorant, and in the other case you purposely neglected learn the differences, in which case you are behaving indecently. Comrade, do you think that you ought to treat me as such? Do you think that I do not care for the working class like you do? Do you think that it is my intention to disrespect you? No, I am in no way different from any other good communist. Just like you I believe in the liberation of the working class. Our differences are merely theoretical, and in that case we should engage in polite and civil discussion because we are both trying to achieve the same thing, and any criticism that we have for eachother should not be out of contempt but out of a genuine desire to improve the other's understanding of socialism and his practice as a communist. But you have not treated me as a comrade, you have accused me of being something I am not in order to disrespect my opinions, as if we were not both revolutionaries. This is an unacceptable way for communists to treat each other and I expect better from people I call my comrades. You my friend, are not a fascist, and no matter how much we disagree I will call you a fascist. Likewise, you may disagree with me all you want but you may never call me a Stalinist. Why? Because no matter how much we disagree I will never be a Stalinist. Do you not understand that? Then let me repeat myself.

Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism
Maoism is not Stalinism


I would suggest that you read some critiques of your own tendency.

http://libcom.org/history/notes-towards-critique-maoism

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/094_china_part3.html


You act as if I choose this tendency without properly investigating it first. I have read your critiques. And guess what, they were full of factually inaccurate nonsense. Now since you have read the critiques, I suggest you read the responses.

http://www.signalfire.org/?p=21722

http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2012/10/message-to-insurgent-notes-please.html

And here is an essential article for understanding what distinguishes Maoism from other traditions

http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2012/10/maoism-or-trotskyism-free-download.html

I have read Marx, I have read Lenin, I have read Mao, and I have read far more than that. I also read Gramsci and Trotsky, who influenced my decision to choose Maoism as the practical synthesis of their (good) ideas. I'm not going to list everyone who I read because as a communist you should not assume that I am only a Maoist because I am so dumb that I don't know what Maoism is, and that I just need you to tell me what it is so I can be "cured". There should be an assumption that both parties are equal in intelligence and that disagreements are for the sake of mutual improvement, instead of lecturing.


You "expected better" from the user? Why would you be disappointed by the post? Many socialists believe that China, the Soviet Union, etc. were not "communist states" (an oxymoron).


I have nothing wrong with him calling China and the Soviet Union capitalist because he has read on the subject and has a right to his opinion. However calling China "Stalinist" betrays an ignorance on his behalf that is quite frankly beneath him

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Maoism is not Stalinism


I know rite, it's even more flagrant about embracing the Petit-bourgeois and peasants and making sure to drive through a bourgeois revolution.

[Ostrinski]

In fairness, Stalinism in its inception was the expression of the failure of proletarian revolution while the Chinese Civil War was a wholesale bourgeois revolution, as Takayuki notes.

Like BB said the other week, it's like you have to taste the different flavors of shit. You're not content with acknowledging shit as shit so you make shit wear a hat and you make it do a little dance, but you're not fooling anyone as to whether or not what you are advocating is a form of shit in contrast to other shit.

[Ostrinski]

In my sig

[prolcon]

I think the oppressive nature of political centralization owes a lot to militant political administration, which arises as a consequence of the militant character of revolution. Bureaucratization becomes a problem because the nature of military is of hierarchical administration, rather than democratic consensus. And the state tends to persist after the seizure of power as a means of protecting the gains of the revolution. Over time, though, its character begins to reflect its struggles within the global capitalist order; it begins to adapt through market liberalization.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Do you even have a clue what Marxist-Leninist-Maoism is?

Yes


Do you even know what Stalinism is?

Yes


Did you know that Stalin tried to set up a Stalinist state in China with Sheng Shicai as it's puppet leader and then tried to purge Mao and his sympathizers? No? Well let me fill you in on a few other things

This still completely ignores the fact that Mao was heavily influenced by Stalin and the fact that he created a Stalinist society with some changes due to different material conditions.


Stalinists promote the Popular front in the face of imperialism and fascism. Under this form of front. Communists liquidate themselves into bourgeois forces much like how they did in Spain, due to the arguement that opposing fascism is more important or that underdevloped countries can not establish socialism so they might as well tail the bourgeois. Stalin tried to convince Mao to practice entryism into the Nationalist party and they purged his ass, from that point since Maoists reject the popular front in favor of the united front, and since the whole idea of a "popular front" was based in the euro-centric idea that socialism can not be established in the third world, we reject this attitude as defeatist and hold that socialist revolutions should be held wherever they can be, regardless of the difficulties. Yes it might be impossible, but it is better to try and fail then to never try.

Well, you are somewhat right and somewhat wrong. There are Maoists that view the popular front in a negative light, and others that don't. Either way, both Maoist New Democracy and the popular front tactic are class collaborationist. New Democracy calls for a "coalition" with other classes, including the national bourgeoisie and petit bourgeoisie.


Stalin theorized that class struggle continues under socialism, but all he said was that foreign spies might be able to enter the soviet union and sabotage it from within. His solution was that the vanguard was the only impenetrable fortress against reaction and that an iron fist was the only way to prevent counter revolution. A few years after he died the Soviet Union began capitalist reforms

The bolded section REALLY caught my eye. This is what is popularly called around here the "Great Man" theory. The death of one man caused "revisionism" and "capitalist restoration"? As Marxists, we know that history doesn't work this way. The material conditions in Russia didn't allow for socialism. From the failure of the revolutionary wave in the late 1910's, early 1920's the Bolshevik Revolution was isolated and existed in a hostile world. The revolution failed to spread, and the eventual collapse of the proletarian dictatorship and the success of the counter-revolution saw it's manifestation in Stalinism (to be sure though, this was beginning to happen before Stalin's rule).


as long as socialism remains confined to one country capitalist relations still exist and therefore can nurture a new bourgeois

I would completely agree with you on the above if you said the revolution remains confined to one country. How can "capitalist relations" exist within socialism? Socialism is the antithesis of capitalism, and capitalist relations cannot exist within it.


Additionally, Stalinists believe in electoral politics and participating in bourgeois governments while Marxist-Leninist-Maoists refuse this idea and believe that only through armed revolution can socialism be achieved, and that electoral politics in any form is inherently reactionary.

Maoists do agree with participating in bourgeois governments. In fact, it is literally built into the theory of New Democracy which includes alien class elements, as discussed earlier.


Additionally, we oppose insurrectionary tactics due to the fact that they have not been successful since the Russian revolution, and instead we argue that Guerrilla warfare is the most realistic path towards revolution.

Yeah, a guerrilla war in the United States is totally realistic. :rolleyes:


Now in regards to Socialism in one country, come on now, your just going off of technicalities. Is "building" and "achieving" really a difference that is worth getting riled up about?

I was never "riled up" about it, I was calmly and clearly explaining the difference.


I mean seriously, calm down for a minute and realize that you're just talking semantics.

Not exactly. If an individual believes that socialism can exist in a single country and that Stalinist Russia and/or Maoist China was a socialist society, that already says volumes about there politics.


And no one pretends that Communism can be achieved in one country, we simply interpret socialism as a separate and lower stage of communism that can be achieved in a national context.

Socialism in the context of "state capitalism administered by the proletariat state" then yes, this can exist in one country. If you mean socialism as a classless society, then no it cannot exist in one country. If you are talking of the former, then why even call it "socialism" instead of the dictatorship of the proletariat (which, by the way, did not exist in China). Socialism traditionally has always meant a wageless, classless, moneyless, and stateless society.


But even on this Maoists and Stalin have a different view point. Stalin upheld the revisionist Theory of Productive Forces, which states that the primary purpose of the state is to improve industry and that the socialization of the mode of production is indesirble. While Maoists agree that it is important to improve production and industry, we also believe that Stalin was wrong on this one and that the Socialization of the mode of production should take place as soon as possible to maintain the socialist project.

1. Industrialization is the task of the bourgeois revolution. In fact, it is interesting to note similarities in Italy in 1848 and Stalinist Russia.

2. You seem to equate nationalization of property with socialism, which is utterly untrue. Nationalized property can, and has, existed right alongside the anarchy of the market, generalized commodity production, wage labor, surplus-value production, and other essential capitalist charectaristics.


The point is that you called me a Stalinist.

No, you're a Maoist, which is a form of Stalinism.


I am not a Stalinist, I have never expressed any favor towards his theoretical system nor have I attempted to defend his errors.

Do you defend the idea of socialism in one country? Do you agree that the exchange of equivalent values will exist under socialism? Do you equate nationalized property with socialism? Do you hold the idealist view that with the death of Stalin counter-revolution in Russia began? etc. etc.


Why do I defend socialism in one country? Because it was the best way forward.

Absolutely not!


This is not a matter of ideology, it is a matter of material condition. If the revolution is constrained to one country then you must begin to build socialism in one country.

No, you must maintain the proletariat dictatorship until socialism is possible. Engels explicitly stated in his "Principles of Communism" that socialism absolutely cannot exist in one country.


Anything else is either idealist, anti-materalist, or defeatist. After all, it wasn't just the result of Stalin being a "Stalinist", it was a result of historical conditions. Do you think you would have done differently in Stalin's shoes? Well if you do then you are wrong, because it is material condition that determined socialism in one country.

I actually agree with you here, except the main difference is that I don't uphold theories and ideals from the failure of the revolution, unlike you.


You on the otherhand have shown yourself to be a deceitful person. You have shown me through your cruel accusation of me being a Stalinist that you do not care for what is true and what is untrue and that you simply wish to accuse things you dislike of whatever you wish to because you dislike them.

It is not a "cruel accusation" that Maoism is a form of Stalinism, but something understood by everyone except some Maoists. You have not demonstrated how Maoism is significantly different from Stalinism when it contains, still, all it's basic characteristics.


This is not the proper way to behave in a debate. Right now you are being rude to me

Actually, I wasn't being rude at all. I was calmly and clearly stating what I thought and why I thought that way. I think you are offended because you either

a. have never heard such arguments before
b. have heard such arguments, but have never had to confront them
c. are so wrapped up in "Maoism" it is almost like a religion to you and any deviation from it is heresy.


and I do not accuse you of being a fascist. Why? Because you are not fascist. This is not a matter for debate, we can not interpret this one way or another. You are not a fascist, and no amount of name calling and slander will ever make you a fascist.

I agree (although it is funny because a certain user here has accused left communism of fascism before, specifically targeting me).


Likewise, I am not a Stalinist. This is not a matter that is up for debate. If you call me a Stalinist, you are wrong

Maoism is a form of Stalinism. You have not demonstrated how it is not. Simply saying "it is not a matter of debate" doesn't mean that it isn't a matter of debate.


and in this matter there are two forms of being wrong. In one case you simply do not know the differences, which would make you ignorant, and in the other case you purposely neglected learn the differences, in which case you are behaving indecently.

Or, just perhaps, you don't realize that Stalinism encompasses more than historical positions. If a theory agrees that the exchange of equivalent values will exist in socialism, socialism can exist in one country, etc. it is Stalinist.


Comrade, do you think that you ought to treat me as such? Do you think that I do not care for the working class like you do? Do you think that it is my intention to disrespect you? No, I am in no way different from any other good communist. Just like you I believe in the liberation of the working class. Our differences are merely theoretical, and in that case we should engage in polite and civil discussion because we are both trying to achieve the same thing, and any criticism that we have for eachother should not be out of contempt but out of a genuine desire to improve the other's understanding of socialism and his practice as a communist. But you have not treated me as a comrade, you have accused me of being something I am not in order to disrespect my opinions, as if we were not both revolutionaries. This is an unacceptable way for communists to treat each other and I expect better from people I call my comrades.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! My other post wasn't "rude" or "disrespectful" at all. Yeah, I was blunt at the beginning, but I explained very calmly why Maoism is a form of Stalinism. If you are going to get this offended every time someone says Maoism is Stalinist, then I guess you should only participate in the forum in the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist group, and even there some Maoists will acknowledge that Maoism is a form of Stalinism "just developed". Most understand that Maoism is Stalinist.



You my friend, are not a fascist, and no matter how much we disagree I will call you a fascist. Likewise, you may disagree with me all you want but you may never call me a Stalinist. Why? Because no matter how much we disagree I will never be a Stalinist. Do you not understand that?

No I don't understand that, because Maoism is a form of Stalinism and you have not demonstrated any differently.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Again, I do not defend Stalin. But you have to realize that a revolutionary wave does not always guarantee victory. You need to start building up a base to launch the next revolution from (not in a social-imperalist manner, but I mean in practical terms of assisting international revolutionaries who need guns and tanks). The reason why Stalin said the wind of revolutionary period was over was because it was over; it failed. And that's why he built the base up for the next one. (Not that his foreign policy was good from a practical view, I am merely speaking from a theoretical standpoint)

Yeah, and the SU did nothing of that. They didn't help the international workers' movement, but focused on building up the national production. Not only that, they signed both secret and not so secret deals with bourgeois states. That's hardly (read: not) to build a base to support a world revolution.

[Althusser]

To those who don't consider any country to have ever been socialist because "you can't have socialism in one country", what is the difference between socialism and communism. The existence of a fading state or something?

[Zukunftsmusik]

To those who don't consider any country to have ever been socialist because "you can't have socialism in one country", what is the difference between socialism and communism. The existence of a fading state or something?

There's no reason to not use them interchangeably

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Capitalism is the system that exists in every nation on the planet, including Cuba. There can be no "socialism in one country."


What about communes?

You say there can be no socialism in one country, but then how is there socialism in one area?

[Marxaveli]

What about communes?

You say there can be no socialism in one country, but then how is there socialism in one area?

I still wouldn't consider such communities to be socialist. They might have socialist-like policies, or live a socialist-like lifestyle, but ultimately, the forces of the surrounding capitalist system will affect them. Imagine living in a neighborhood where you and all your neighbors try to practice socialism, but every single community outside of yours guys was capitalist.....your community would eventually if not very quickly transfer back to capitalism - you will still have to sell your labor to a capitalist institution to survive. The applies to the global level as much as it does the local level or community level, thus why the Russian Revolution ultimately led back to capitalism. Bottomline: as long as capitalism exists, socialism cannot.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I still wouldn't consider such communities to be socialist. They might have socialist-like policies, or live a socialist-like lifestyle, but ultimately, the forces of the surrounding capitalist system will affect them.

Yes, I know this.


Imagine living in a neighborhood where you and all your neighbors try to practice socialism, but every single community outside of yours guys was capitalist.....your community would eventually if not very quickly transfer back to capitalism - you will still have to sell your labor to a capitalist institution to survive.

What about self-sufficient communities?


The applies to the global level as much as it does the local level or community level, thus why the Russian Revolution ultimately led back to capitalism. Bottomline: as long as capitalism exists, socialism cannot.


What about self-sufficient countries?

[Zukunftsmusik]

What about self-sufficient communities?

What about self-sufficient countries?

Self sufficient communes might actually be possible. Self-sufficient countries is really a dream, though. Capitalism and markets are becoming more and more global and intertwined by the second.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Self sufficient communes might actually be possible. Self-sufficient countries is really a dream, though. Capitalism and markets are becoming more and more global and intertwined by the second.

The worst things other countries can do are embargoes and war. If we win/avoid potential war and we are self-suficient we can have socialism in one country. You are right in saying it is more like a dream, because it is hard to accomplish, but worldwide revolution is much, much, much harder to achieve.

[GoddessCleoLover]

As I understand the relevant history attempts at national "self-sufficiency" lead inexorably to autarky which results in the dictatorial rule of an elite and oppression of the workers.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

As I understand the relevant history attempts at national "self-sufficiency" lead inexorably to autarky which results in the dictatorial rule of an elite and oppression of the workers.

Is the attempt of reaching national self-suficiency what leads to fascism, or is fascism that says a country must be self-suficient?

You are using fascism as an example, and doing it poorly.

[Let's Get Free]

but worldwide revolution is much, much, much harder to achieve.

I don't think the task of a worldwide revolution is as daunting as many people make it out to be. For one thing, if workers in one part of the world are sufficiently strong to be in a position to get rid of capitalism then it is more than likely that the workers eslewhere will not be that far befind at all. Indeed, the world socialist movement itself is likely to work to pro-actively ensure that as far as possible the movement grows as evenly as possible throughout the world with the result that the revolutionary changeover occurs within as a short a time span as possible thoughout the world

[Marxaveli]

The worst things other countries can do are embargoes and war. If we win/avoid potential war and we are self-suficient we can have socialism in one country. You are right in saying it is more like a dream, because it is hard to accomplish, but worldwide revolution is much, much, much harder to achieve.

How is SIOC going to work? How are they going to maintain (and eventually obtain) the resources needed to sustain themselves? By trading with capitalist nations? There goes your SIOC. And this only takes into account economic factors, it doesn't even consider political ones. Ideologically, the capitalist nations will likely disapprove of a 'socialist nation' and use the UN and other global bourgeois institutions to destroy it through economic sanctions or embargoes, if not a direct military assault or coup to restore capitalism.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I don't think the task of a worldwide revolution is as daunting as many people make it out to be. For one thing, if workers in one part of the world are sufficiently strong to be in a position to get rid of capitalism then it is more than likely that the workers eslewhere will not be that far befind at all. Indeed, the world socialist movement itself is likely to work to pro-actively ensure that as far as possible the movement grows as evenly as possible throughout the world with the result that the revolutionary changeover occurs within as a short a time span as possible thoughout the world

But what if it happens as in the USSR?

[Crux]

I think western europe (sweden, finland, etc.) practices a weak form of socialism in the welfare state. If you look at Marx's list of demands in the Communist Manifesto, a lot of them are now in practice in the welfare state: free education, government ownership of highways, rail lines, voting rights for all men and women, no child labor, heavy progressive tax rate. In addition you now have free health care and a national pension scheme in western europe.

Obviously western europe is not socialist, but it is a lot further down the road to socialism than in 1929.
As a swede I would have to strongly disagree with that. Even in what was the golden age of the nordic wellfare state (which would be some 40 years ago) it didn't even begin to approach socialism. There were some progressive reforms, largely the result of a massive wave of strikes all through the 1920's, as well as an impetus from the general strikes before that. So the labour movement and the unions was in a very powerful situation both momentum and membership wise. This made it possible for the union bureacracy and the socialdemocratic government to negotiate a few deals with the employers organization, deals that at the time of signing was widely regarded as sell-out deals. Even so no progressive reform was handed down from above, but they all had to be fought for.

And going back to modern times, from theearly 1990's there's basically been a permanent policy of cut-backs, regardless of whether it is the soc dem's or the conservative-liberals in government.

So no, Sweden (or the other nordic countries) is not and was not socialism.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

How is SIOC going to work?

I asked first!


How are they going to maintain (and eventually obtain) the resources needed to sustain themselves?

Self-suficient means we can produce everything in our country.


And this only takes into account economic factors, it doesn't even consider political ones. Ideologically, the capitalist nations will likely disapprove of a 'socialist nation' and use the UN and other global bourgeois institutions to destroy it through economic sanctions or embargoes

I am starting to think you have no idea what self-suficient means.


, if not a direct military assault or coup to restore capitalism

Yeah, that is why it is hard.

[Marxaveli]

I asked first!

I think we both know the answer, which is below.




Self-suficient means we can produce everything in our country.

Yea, not going to happen.



I am starting to think you have no idea what self-suficient means.

I know what it means, but I have yet to see anyone demonstrate how it is objectively possible.


Yeah, that is why it is hard.

It isn't hard. It is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE. SIOC has about the same odds of working as humans being able to live on planet Mercury.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I would analogize not to the planet Mercury but to either the DPRK, Albania during the era of Enver Hoxha, or "Democratic Kampuchea". In the best case scenario of SIOC autarky, Albania, the results were a clear failure and the regime was overthrown. The other two examples, DK and DPRK are/were horrible countries that enslaved/murdered their citizens. The only other example of SIOV autarky that comes to mind might be Ethiopia under Mengistu, another ghastly regime that impoverished its citizens.

[prolcon]

Albania was quite poor, but the socialist endeavor absolutely made gains in that country. And the DPRK is a heavily militarized state to be sure, but I sincerely believe it to be grossly inaccurate to say that the North Korean workers are any more enslaved than they are in the United States of America. Caveat: I say that without regarding those interred in labor camps, who are subjected to much harsher conditions than incarcerated U.S. citizens. I must say, though, that the American government isn't unfamiliar with the kind of brutality that one might expect of a North Korean camp.

And also, just playing devil's advocate here, my understanding of socialism in one country is that, as a method, it is meant to be temporary in that it is designed to preserve the gains of nationally organized revolution. SIOC isn't liable to defeat bourgeois hegemony, but making it an all-or-nothing scenario isn't helping the cause.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Yea, not going to happen.

You know those tactics don't work on me, they only make me defend my position even more fiercely.


I know what it means, but I have yet to see anyone demonstrate how it is objectively possible.

Then how can a a planet be self-suficient, but a country cannot.


It isn't hard. It is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE. SIOC has about the same odds of working as humans being able to live on planet Mercury.

I like the explanation you give here, but it does not make me understand what the hell you are trying to say, nor does it make you right.

[Marxaveli]

Albania was quite poor, but the socialist endeavor absolutely made gains in that country. And the DPRK is a heavily militarized state to be sure, but I sincerely believe it to be grossly inaccurate to say that the North Korean workers are any more enslaved than they are in the United States of America. Caveat: I say that without regarding those interred in labor camps, who are subjected to much harsher conditions than incarcerated U.S. citizens. I must say, though, that the American government isn't unfamiliar with the kind of brutality that one might expect of a North Korean camp.

And also, just playing devil's advocate here, my understanding of socialism in one country is that, as a method, it is meant to be temporary in that it is designed to preserve the gains of nationally organized revolution. SIOC isn't liable to defeat bourgeois hegemony, but making it an all-or-nothing scenario isn't helping the cause.

No man, U.S. workers are much more free than N. Korean workers. In N. Korea, you cannot criticize the State openly, at least here you can (sort of). This isn't to say U.S. workers are generally free, just relatively more so. But in the big picture, it doesn't really matter, because trying to determine the level of freedom within a bourgeois framework is just lesser vs greater evilism. Would I choose to live in N. Korea over the US? No, I wouldn't, but I also understand that many of these countries are the way they are is because of US imperialism and hegemony.

SIOC may only be meant to be temporary, but intention and end result must be distinguished - Marxism doesn't put emphasis on motive. SIOC can never work, and every nation that has attempted it is historical proof. All of them eventually transitioned back into some form of capitalism, if they were ever even socialist at all, which I don't think they were. It depends on how you define socialism of course, but for me, they never were.

[prolcon]

No man, U.S. workers are much more free than N. Korean workers. In N. Korea, you cannot criticize the State openly, at least here you can (sort of). This isn't to say U.S. workers are generally free, just relatively more so. But in the big picture, it doesn't really matter, because trying to determine the level of freedom within a bourgeois framework is just lesser vs greater evilism. Would I choose to live in N. Korea over the US? No, I wouldn't, but I also understand that many of these countries are the way they are is because of US imperialism and hegemony.

US workers are enslaved whether or not their masters punish them for criticizing state bureaucrats. The DPRK is as it is because of the military nature of revolution and the immediately post-revolutionary state; its halted socialistic development has left its political administration extremely centralized.


SIOC may only be meant to be temporary, but intention and end result must be distinguished - Marxism doesn't put emphasis on motive. SIOC can never work, and every nation that has attempted it is historical proof. All of them eventually transitioned back into some form of capitalism, if they were ever even socialist at all, which I don't think they were. It depends on how you define socialism of course, but for me, they never were.

SIOC isn't meant to "work." SIOC is the method of dealing with the failure of socialist revolution to spread through sufficiently industrialized nation-states. We're likely to see a more global socialist revolution in the future, but SIOC was an historical attempt to deal with the fact that the proletarian socialist revolutions had failed to unfold as most had predicted.

[Blake's Baby]

...


Then how can a a planet be self-suficient, but a country cannot...

Are you for real?

Does Earth import anything from outside?

If 'Yes', Earth is not self-sufficient.

If 'No', Earth is self-sufficient.

Answer Yes/No.

Does 'a country' import anything from outside?

If 'Yes', 'a country' is not self-sufficient.

If 'No', 'a country' is self-sufficient.

Answer Yes/No.

Then show me any country that imports neither goods nor capital and I'll agree that all of their current needs could be met autarchically.

[Engels]

Then how can a a planet be self-suficient, but a country cannot.


Are you being serious? Are you privy to some Top Secret trade agreement between Earth and some Alien civilisation?

You can’t tell the difference between an isolated revolution surrounded by hostile capitalist states and a global revolution undertaken by the international working class which would then collectively possess and control the entirety of the means of production available on the planet?

This is incredibly depressing, watching an anarchist defend SIOC.

EDIT: Blake's Baby put it in a better way.

[Ostrinski]

TheRedAnarchist23 if you are going to agree with Stalin then you are going to have to demonstrate how he was right with evidence from the historical experience of the socialist movement. What the opponents of SiOC (non-Marxist-Leninists) are looking for here is an illustration of where socialism has been built in one country, or (since you can't as it has never happened), provide an explanation to us of how this could possibly work.

Now unless your politics have changed since joining this site (I can't think of any other reason that the word 'anarchist' would be in your name), you've either got some serious inconsistencies going on or you're trying to draw an extremely audacious synthesis between anarchism and Marxism-Leninism (there's some weird people in this world so it's probably been tried before).

In the case of the former, it's even more bizarre given that you are supposedly an anarchist, and while any socialist would be inconsistent in upholding SiOC anarchists have an additional particular opposition to a state of any kind so you also have to demonstrate how an isolated territory can go without a state (i.e. armed bodies of men tasked with preserving the existing society, defending the existing society, and mediating the existing society's contradictions). If you think a revolutionary government without armed bodies of men won't be replaced on a dime by the bourgeois states then you're either naive or insane.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The very notion of synthesizing Anarchism and "Marxism-Leninism" (Stalinism) boggles my mind. The Stalinoids destroyed the CNT/FAI through methods as bloody as those employed by the Gestapo.

Actually, let me stop here. Ostrinski covered this issue splendidly and RevLeft doesn't need me to play the Greek Chorus.

[helot]

In the case of the former, it's even more bizarre given that you are supposedly an anarchist, and while any socialist would be inconsistent in upholding SiOC anarchists have an additional particular opposition to a state of any kind so you also have to demonstrate how an isolated territory can go without a state (i.e. armed bodies of men tasked with preserving the existing society, defending the existing society, and mediating the existing society's contradictions). If you think a revolutionary government without armed bodies of men won't be replaced on a dime by the bourgeois states then you're either naive or insane.


Your minimalist definition of the state doesn't correspond to the characteristics Engels pointed out and it can mean a state has existed for all of human history.




The very notion of synthesizing Anarchism and "Marxism-Leninism" (Stalinism) boggles my mind. The Stalinoids destroyed the CNT/FAI through methods as bloody as those employed by the Gestapo.

Reminds me of claims about the CNT/FAI being betrayed by the Communist Party... always confuses me. Of course the Communist Party of Spain was a counter-revolutionary force as can be seen from the Barcelona May Days amongst other events but to be betrayed implies some trust and that's definitely not what should be offered to MLs. As an anarchist myself i'm pretty confident that there are Marxists i could trust not to shoot me in the back during a revolution but that's reserved for left communists et al and not Marxist-Leninists, Trots etc.




As for the topic at large... if we were to ignore invasion from capitalist states i'd imagine that in theory if a country were actually capable of being fully self-sufficient then it may be possible to build communism in one country. However, with the combination of an uneven distribution of natural resources and external states vying to conquer the revolutionary area only the road to communism can be constructed (i.e. workers' councils etc) temporarily in one country.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The PCE and their OGPU henchman didn't betray the FAI/CNT or POUM, they betrayed the working people of Catalonia and the rest of Spain.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Then show me any country that imports neither goods nor capital and I'll agree that all of their current needs could be met autarchically.

Antartica!:D

[TheRedAnarchist23]

This is incredibly depressing, watching an anarchist defend SIOC.

You idiot, I am not defending anything!

I am asking a question, nothing more.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

The very notion of synthesizing Anarchism and "Marxism-Leninism" (Stalinism) boggles my mind. The Stalinoids destroyed the CNT/FAI through methods as bloody as those employed by the Gestapo.


Finaly someone who is not a stalinist appologist!

[GoddessCleoLover]

IMO the left is still suffering from the Stalin legacy. The only way that we will ever win back the support of workers is to totally repudiate Stalin. Denying the incontrovertible facts of the horrors of Stalinism as bourgeois propaganda makes us appear ridiculous. Let Stormfron appear ridiculous with their historical revisionism. We have to repudiate those whole play a David Irving-type role on the left. There is no place for historical revisionism in our movement.

[hetz]

The only way that we will ever win back the support of workers is to totally repudiate Stalin.Yeah, i see Trots ( ... ) are doing really well with that.
Repudiating Stalin is not an actual task of the revolutionary proletariat.
It's not really the burning issue of today.

The left suffers from the legacy of the historical failure of socialism in Europe. It suffers from the legacy of Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Honecker, Rakosi and Jaruzelski, Stasi and Trabants, NKVD and prodrazvyorstka.
The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on us, but we can't let that burden bury us to the ground.
I see no problem with repudiating Stalin, but that didn't and won't win support of the proletariat. Neither will, of course, the opposite.

The real question is creating a revolutionary movement on the wave of the ever-spreading popular discontent of today.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I agree that the legacy that burdens us goes beyond Stalin and pertains to authoritarian and anti-working class pseudo-socialism. The entire 20th century experience of post-revolutionary authoritarianism ought to be critiqued without fear or favor and if that includes Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Mao, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh, etcetera then fine. Let the chips fall where they may.

Popular discontent may be rising post-2008 but if we are to recreate a revolutionary movement then we must come to terms with our history.

[prolcon]

IMO the left is still suffering from the Stalin legacy. The only way that we will ever win back the support of workers is to totally repudiate Stalin. Denying the incontrovertible facts of the horrors of Stalinism as bourgeois propaganda makes us appear ridiculous. Let Stormfron appear ridiculous with their historical revisionism. We have to repudiate those whole play a David Irving-type role on the left. There is no place for historical revisionism in our movement.

There are plenty of things that occurred under Stalin that were atrocious, even when dismissing what is "common knowledge" about the USSR of the time that has no basis in fact. That said, what good does it do for a materialist analysis of history and class to repudiate an individual? And what good does that do for our understanding of history? Even a casual glance into history demonstrates that the history of the Great Terror, of collectivization, of the Holodomor, of World War II, this history is much more complicated than attributing inhuman atrocities to the ideas and words of one man. This is as true of Germany at the time as it is of the Soviet Union, although, for my money, I'm willing to openly admire what strides were made during Stalin's time.

"Repudiating" Stalin is more or less saying to the powers that be that "Oh, no! You've got it all wrong! See, we're the good communists!" Deciding that Stalin is the problem the left faces is to:


ignore the problems that actually impede the left, particularly where it concerns theory and unity; and
to play into anti-communist rhetoric, which relies entirely on dismissing communism by assaulting the character of an individual, usually Stalin (but often Mao, Pot, Kim, etc.).

Atrocities or none, we do ourselves no favors to attribute the success or failure of socialism to the memory of some individual.

[GoddessCleoLover]

If we are serious about reviving the international revolutionary movement it is imperative that we come to grips with the failures of the 20th century experience. I agree that we must delve deeper into that experience than merely repudiating certain individual leaders.

With respect to the issue of countries "practicing socialism", my view is that entire notion is highly problematic. The capitalistic mode of production is a universal phenomena that can only be resolved on an international basis. The 20th century experience of attempting to build socialism in certain countries or even a certain bloc came to grief for a number of reasons. To my mind one central reason involved idealistic notions of building a socialist counterweight to international capitalism in isolated and underdeveloped countries. I hope that all revolutionary leftists can agree that this is not possible. International capitalism must be supplanted in the advanced industrial countries as well if we are to have decent chance of constructing socialism.

[prolcon]

If we are serious about reviving the international revolutionary movement it is imperative that we come to grips with the failures of the 20th century experience. I agree that we must delve deeper into that experience than merely repudiating certain individual leaders.

We need to also understand these failures in context.


With respect to the issue of countries "practicing socialism", my view is that entire notion is highly problematic. The capitalistic mode of production is a universal phenomena that can only be resolved on an international basis. The 20th century experience of attempting to build socialism in certain countries or even a certain bloc came to grief for a number of reasons. To my mind one central reason involved idealistic notions of building a socialist counterweight to international capitalism in isolated and underdeveloped countries. I hope that all revolutionary leftists can agree that this is not possible. International capitalism must be supplanted in the advanced industrial countries as well if we are to have decent chance of constructing socialism.

I agree that international capitalism needs to be supplanted and it needs to be done rapidly, but history shows us that uninterrupted revolution doesn't occur. The idea isn't to build the ideal socialist society within one set of borders while capitalism persists in another; it's to establish bases of power for the working class.

[Engels]

Atrocities or none, we do ourselves no favors to attribute the success or failure of socialism to the memory of some individual.

I feel that this is a strawman. Acknowledging that these individuals (e.g. Stalin, Mao) played an incredibly counter-revolutionary role is just not the same as entirely attributing the success or failure of “socialism” to their memory.

Defending these so called “communists” who murdered workers en masse is appalling. Not to mention, repudiating Stalinism and its variants can prove to be of immense value, particularly in terms of propaganda.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

What about communes?

You say there can be no socialism in one country, but then how is there socialism in one area?

You call yourself an anarchist, yet you spray Stalinist shit on your posts?


national revolutions must become international in scope. just as the European and world reaction is unified, there should no longer be isolated revolutions, but a universal, worldwide revolution.

Bakunin-Revolutionary Catechism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/catechism.htm)

[prolcon]

I feel that this is a strawman. Acknowledging that these individuals (e.g. Stalin, Mao) played an incredibly counter-revolutionary role is just not the same as entirely attributing the success or failure of “socialism” to their memory.

I disagree, because when these individuals are "repudiated," without fail, it is only individuals or specific ideas that are addressed. Not once have I seen an in-depth discussion with regards to the material conditions that affect and foment revisionist trends.


Defending these so called “communists” who murdered workers en masse is appalling. Not to mention, repudiating Stalinism and its variants can prove to be of immense value, particularly in terms of propaganda.

Playing into the hands of bourgeois propagandists, even while the regime of the Soviet Union during that time was undeniably responsible for atrocities, is not going to help the left in any way.

Repudiation of Stalin and others has more or less been a mainstay of modern leftism, particularly in the West. Tell me, then, what has this managed to accomplish for leftism? What has repudiating Stalin all this time actually managed to win for the working class?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Repudiation of Stalin and others has more or less been a mainstay of modern leftism, particularly in the West. Tell me, then, what has this managed to accomplish for leftism? What has repudiating Stalin all this time actually managed to win for the working class?

What has praising him done for the working class? I think that's an even better question.

[prolcon]

What has praising him done for the working class? I think that's an even better question.

It actually isn't. In fact, it's a much more meaningless, useless question. Who around here is "praising" Stalin? Among those who support the theoretical contributions and national accomplishments of Stalin, who has actually "praised" him without acknowledging to any extent the atrocities committed during his time?

And that still doesn't answer what "repudiating" him has ever accomplished. You didn't answer that question; you shifted things onto me.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Playing into the hands of bourgeois propagandists, even while the regime of the Soviet Union during that time was undeniably responsible for atrocities, is not going to help the left in any way.

Repudiation of Stalin and others has more or less been a mainstay of modern leftism, particularly in the West. Tell me, then, what has this managed to accomplish for leftism? What has repudiating Stalin all this time actually managed to win for the working class?

The Left played into the hands of the bourgeoisie and betrayed the proletariat back in the 1930s by following the Moscow party line. The vast majority of the non-reformist Left fell into that blunder. Trotskyism was a distinctly minority movement and the rest of the tendencies present on RevLeft were basically non-existent.

I am a typical RevLefter, sifting through the wreckage and picking out my favorites; Antonio Gramsci, Rosa Luxemburg, and Andres Nin. That is all fine and well, but back when it counted the Comintern line was preponderant. The result was to alienate first the intelligentsia that was favorably disposed toward socialism. The second step was to lose the support of politically aware workers, who by the 1950s were well aware of the atrociousness of Soviet history.

Leftists who were intellectually honest about the Soviet experience IMO bought an interval of twenty or thirty years' time. In other words, the collapse of the left that occurred in the 80s and 90s would have occurred in the 60s had there been an attempt to continue the Comintern policies of the 30s and 40s.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

You call yourself an anarchist, yet you spray Stalinist shit on your posts?



Bakunin-Revolutionary Catechism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/catechism.htm)

First you call Maoists Stalinists, now you call Anarchist Stalinists?

I'm sorry, but are you trolling?

I mean seriously, I was going to respond to everything on this thread at some point. But now I just think that you people are shit posting

[GoddessCleoLover]

First you call Maoists Stalinists, now you call Anarchist Stalinists?

I'm sorry, but are you trolling?

I mean seriously, I was going to respond to everything on this thread at some point. But now I just think that you people are shit posting

Brosa Luxemberg isn't trolling, but is specifically addressing a theoretical contradiction in RedAnarchist's analysis. Internationalism is one of the first principles of anarchism and blending anarchist theory with "socialism in one country" is highly unusual, to speak in euphemistic terms.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Brosa Luxemberg isn't trolling, but is specifically addressing a theoretical contradiction in RedAnarchist's analysis. Internationalism is one of the first principles of anarchism and blending anarchist theory with "socialism in one country" is highly unusual, to speak in euphemistic terms.


You idiot, I am not defending anything!

I am asking a question, nothing more.


The reason why this is trolling is, as I've already brought up, if a revolution wins in only one country, then no matter what your theory is you've got socialism in one country. Theory doesn't matter if it isn't applicable to practice. So if an Anarchist revolution is successful in Australia, then does that make it "Stalinist" even if there is no state? The answer is no, and this is why the term "Stalinist" ought to be ditched all together, since it is nothing more than a dirty smear.

[prolcon]

The Left played into the hands of the bourgeoisie and betrayed the proletariat back in the 1930s by following the Moscow party line. The vast majority of the non-reformist Left fell into that blunder. Trotskyism was a distinctly minority movement and the rest of the tendencies present on RevLeft were basically non-existent.

I think it's a highly moralized bit of rhetoric to say that the working class was "betrayed" during that time rather than that the socialist endeavor was diverted. Again, this comes back to the question of individual ideologies versus concrete, material conditions. Was it that the working class was "betrayed" or that socialist attempts were diverted? Was it the fault of Stalin that bourgeois political hegemony persisted or had that more to do with the concrete political conditions of the world at large?


I am a typical RevLefter, sifting through the wreckage and picking out my favorites; Antonio Gramsci, Rosa Luxemburg, and Andres Nin. That is all fine and well, but back when it counted the Comintern line was preponderant. The result was to alienate first the intelligentsia that was favorably disposed toward socialism. The second step was to lose the support of politically aware workers, who by the 1950s were well aware of the atrociousness of Soviet history.

And how much of that is the fault of individual ideologies or political rhetoric? What material conditions prevailed at the time that influenced the socialist endeavor across the globe? And I think it's helpful to consider exactly how "atrocious" Soviet history is in the context of world history and the influence of political agenda in its study.

[prolcon]

The reason why this is trolling is, as I've already brought up, if a revolution wins in only one country, then no matter what your theory is you've got socialism in one country. Theory doesn't matter if it isn't applicable to practice. So if an Anarchist revolution is successful in Australia, then does that make it "Stalinist" even if there is no state? The answer is no, and this is why the term "Stalinist" ought to be ditched all together, since it is nothing more than a dirty smear.

Let's talk about this. Most of the time, the argument is a semantic one: what counts as "socialism" technically. But it is clear you can have, at least to a certain extent, proletarian political power within national borders. History has shown us that an uninterrupted revolution from sufficiently industrialized country to sufficiently industrialized country is probably not going to happen. That said, it is necessary for the final victory of socialism that global capitalism be overthrown. But this isn't any reason to dismiss the efforts of national proletarian populations to overthrow their national bourgeoisie and seize political power in their regions. More or less, whether "socialism" in one country "works" or not is an argument of semantics, but what history clearly demonstrates is that socialistic states tend to reflect the pressures of existing in a capitalist world with time.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I think it's a highly moralized bit of rhetoric to say that the working class was "betrayed" during that time rather than that the socialist endeavor was diverted. Again, this comes back to the question of individual ideologies versus concrete, material conditions. Was it that the working class was "betrayed" or that socialist attempts were diverted? Was it the fault of Stalin that bourgeois political hegemony persisted or had that more to do with the concrete political conditions of the world at large?



And how much of that is the fault of individual ideologies or political rhetoric? What material conditions prevailed at the time that influenced the socialist endeavor across the globe? And I think it's helpful to consider exactly how "atrocious" Soviet history is in the context of world history and the influence of political agenda in its study.


The betrayal to which I refer is the decision by Leftist intellectuals and Comintern party leaders to follow the Comintern line rather than provide the working class an honest analysis of events. We probably fundamentally disagree on this point, but IMO many of the folks knew what was going on in the Soviet Union but chose to protect their careers rather than risk suffering the fate of Andres Nin or Leon Trotsky.

On your second point, I believe that specific policy decisions were undertaken with respect to agricultural collectivization and "cleansing" the Soviet Communist Party of persons whose longstanding party membership proved inconvenient to the current leadership. While material conditions dictated that the Soviet union would faces obstacles to its developments, the specific policy decisions to which I am referring were dictated not by material conditions but were policy choices exercised by the party leadership.

[prolcon]

The betrayal to which I refer is the decision by Leftist intellectuals and Comintern party leaders to follow the Comintern line rather than provide the working class an honest analysis of events. We probably fundamentally disagree on this point, but IMO many of the folks knew what was going on in the Soviet Union but chose to protect their careers rather than risk suffering the fate of Andres Nin or Leon Trotsky.

Again, I think it's heavily moralized and not all that scientific to insist that the Comintern's analysis was "dishonest." Remember, political trends all have their roots in material conditions. I can concede, quite readily, that there were probably very many bureaucrats who sought to protect the power they felt they had.


On your second point, I believe that specific policy decisions were undertaken with respect to agricultural collectivization and "cleansing" the Soviet Communist Party of persons whose longstanding party membership proved inconvenient to the current leadership. While material conditions dictated that the Soviet union would faces obstacles to its developments, the specific policy decisions to which I am referring were dictated not by material conditions but were policy choices exercised by the party leadership.

In fact, they were fomented by material conditions, and I feel like I can explain why. The militant-administrative style of Soviet party configuration is a direct result of the character of revolution at the time: highly centralized and bureaucratic. In a very real way, you're absolutely right in that plenty of specific policies were undertaken to preserve the power of bureaucrats. That this was a failing of individual ideology, though, is where we disagree.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Prolcon; we have flogged this dead horse enough. Let us agree to disagree.

YABM; I agree to some extent with Prolcon's answer to your post. I would tend to see efforts to build SIOC as preordained to fail. Perhaps we have to agree to disagree at this point.

[Engels]

I disagree, because when these individuals are "repudiated," without fail, it is only individuals or specific ideas that are addressed. Not once have I seen an in-depth discussion with regards to the material conditions that affect and foment revisionist trends.

Playing into the hands of bourgeois propagandists, even while the regime of the Soviet Union during that time was undeniably responsible for atrocities, is not going to help the left in any way.

Repudiation of Stalin and others has more or less been a mainstay of modern leftism, particularly in the West. Tell me, then, what has this managed to accomplish for leftism? What has repudiating Stalin all this time actually managed to win for the working class?

I’m new here, but I’m pretty sure Stalin and Stalinism has been (and continues to be) discussed to death. If you want an in-depth, detailed discussion then search for older threads or pick a tendency critical of Stalinism and read up.

It is precisely your defence of these counter-revolutionary fuckers that allows anti-communist propaganda to propagate so freely. It gives these reactionaries who wave red flags an air of legitimacy that they otherwise would not possess. Defending the Soviet Union and other state capitalist shitholes like the North Korea is exactly what allows the bourgeoisie to tell workers, “See, that’s Socialism, is that what you want?”

On the other hand, attacking Stalinism is a simultaneously an attack on bourgeois anti-communism. If you can’t see how repudiating Stalinism is beneficial it to the working class in terms of propaganda, class consciousness etc. then I really don’t know what more to say.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Alright, as always I appreciate your comradeship.

[Engels]

The reason why this is trolling is, as I've already brought up, if a revolution wins in only one country, then no matter what your theory is you've got socialism in one country. Theory doesn't matter if it isn't applicable to practice. So if an Anarchist revolution is successful in Australia, then does that make it "Stalinist" even if there is no state? The answer is no, and this is why the term "Stalinist" ought to be ditched all together, since it is nothing more than a dirty smear.

Where did all the actual anarchists go? Was there a mass anarchist exodus from Revleft or something?

[prolcon]

I’m new here, but I’m pretty sure Stalin and Stalinism has been (and continues to be) discussed to death. If you want an in-depth, detailed discussion then search for older threads or pick a tendency critical of Stalinism and read up.

I'm new here, too, but I feel like I'm fairly familiar with "Stalinism," those ideological traditions that trace themselves to the Leninism of Stalin.


It is precisely your defence of these counter-revolutionary fuckers that allows anti-communist propaganda to propagate so freely.

Not at all. If every "Stalinist" in the world were to reject Stalin and the government during his time wholesale, accomplishments and mistakes alike, anti-communist propaganda would insist that every last one of us wants to blow the guy. Do you think Bill O'Reilly buys it when a member of the CPUSA says they don't like Stalin? According to him, it's all an evil Marxist hoax. Hell, we reject Hitler, and anti-communist propaganda is unshakeable in its decision that Nazis and Commies are BFFs.


It gives these reactionaries who wave red flags an air of legitimacy that they otherwise would not possess. Defending the Soviet Union and other state capitalist shitholes like the North Korea is exactly what allows the bourgeoisie to tell workers, “See, that’s Socialism, is that what you want?”

I've never met a "Stalinist" uncritical of North Korea, but, again, what good has it ever once done our movement to call it "capitalist" back to front? We need to understand North Korea in its historical development, not according to checklist of attributes that helps us decide whether it's "good" or not.


On the other hand, attacking Stalinism is a simultaneously an attack on bourgeois anti-communism. If you can’t see how repudiating Stalinism is beneficial it to the working class in terms of propaganda, class consciousness etc. then I really don’t know what more to say.

Not even kind of. This has been a strategy of the left for a long time and it has never once helped us. Not once, in any way, shape, or fun.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Not even kind of. This has been a strategy of the left for a long time and it has never once helped us. Not once, in any way, shape, or fun.

Yes, since the 1960s particularly, and it has been the most important step the proletariat has taken since the 1920s. Everything you think, everything you say, revolutionaries believe and say the opposite. What you see as 'no help' we see as escaping your nightmare, throwing off the weight of the counter-revolution. A thoroughgoing critique of Stalinism, of all the mistakes of the Bolsheviks, a repudiation of all the state capitalist command economy regimes, is absolutely vital for the working class. Only be utterly rejecting the counter-revolutionary dross exemplified by Stalinism will the working class be able to re-appropriate its own revolutionary history.

You hang on to it if you like, it was consigned to the dustbin of history decades ago.

[hetz]

Yes, since the 1960s particularly, and it has been the most important step the proletariat has taken since the 1920s.
Then why has the revolutionary movement gotten so weaker since the 60s, why have communists become much less irrelevant?

[Blake's Baby]

The '60s was the beginning of the end of the counter-revolution. There was a forward movement of the class. That started to go into reverse in the 1980s. That again started to move forward again about 8 years ago. Class struggle ebbs and flows. There are long-term trends and short-term tendencies that run counter or re-inforce the long-term trends.

Since the late 1960s, the long-term trend has been positive, even if there was a backward counter-movement between around 1985-2005. I think the revolutionary movement is undoubtedly stronger than it was 10-20 years ago. I'm not old enough to have been involved in revolutionary politics in the 1960s.

[prolcon]

Yes, since the 1960s particularly, and it has been the most important step the proletariat has taken since the 1920s. Everything you think, everything you say, revolutionaries believe and say the opposite. What you see as 'no help' we see as escaping your nightmare, throwing off the weight of the counter-revolution. A thoroughgoing critique of Stalinism, of all the mistakes of the Bolsheviks, a repudiation of all the state capitalist command economy regimes, is absolutely vital for the working class. Only be utterly rejecting the counter-revolutionary dross exemplified by Stalinism will the working class be able to re-appropriate its own revolutionary history.

You hang on to it if you like, it was consigned to the dustbin of history decades ago.

Nice moralist rhetoric, and I especially appreciate you calling yourself a revolutionary while defining yourself against me, the apparent counter-revolutionary. Solid work. The only umbrage I take with your post is that you don't really analyze anything in any meaningful way. You throw around a lot of emotionally charged language, absolutely, but you don't really say anything, much less answer my original point, being that repudiating Stalin has not accomplished anything even once.

I would like to see some objective, verifiable data that demonstrates that, since leftists began repudiating Stalin in earnest, that any meaningful, tangible progress whatsoever toward socialism has been made.

[GoddessCleoLover]

[/B]I would like to see some objective, verifiable data that demonstrates that, since leftists began repudiating Stalin in earnest, that any meaningful, tangible progress whatsoever toward socialism has been made.

Perhaps the lack of said progress was due to the tardiness of the aforementioned repudiation. Perhaps the latter phenomena and the former lack a causal connection. I seriously doubt that we would be better off had leftists in the 50s and 60s continued to uphold Stalin's legacy. If you believe that would have been a better course of action could you please explain your reasoning?

[prolcon]

Perhaps the lack of said progress was due to the tardiness of the aforementioned repudiation. Perhaps the latter phenomena and the former lack a causal connection. I seriously doubt that we would be better off had leftists in the 50s and 60s continued to uphold Stalin's legacy. If you believe that would have been a better course of action could you please explain your reasoning?

The key isn't in repudiating any individual personality or ideological trend. The key is in developing an understanding how material conditions affect politics, social development, and ideological trends. We also need to step back from this dichotomy of "true" and "false" socialist endeavor. All socialist endeavor is diverted from the ideal path by tangible conditions determined by history. For example, post-colonial communist countries tend to adopt the idea of "educating" or "reforming" the national bourgeoisie into socialists, due in large part to their role in overthrowing the compradores. The promise of immediate expropriation and political disfranchisement probably didn't appeal to the national bourgeoisie, without whom the anti-colonial democratic revolutions would not have been possible. While it's helpful to realize that these endeavors have been diverted and to enumerate in what ways they have been, painting everything in simple broad strokes doesn't empower us with any kind of understanding. All we're doing when we call China "capitalist" and dismiss out of hand any attempts within that country to approach a more just system is playing identity politics. We're not fucking helping anyone by doing that. Acknowledging that classes persist in the country and exploring the reasons for that will help us, but labeling it and then throwing it away is going to fuck us.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I take your point. Nonetheless, to my mind post-revolutionary political developments are not totally pre-determined by material conditions. Perhaps we are operating from differing premises. My premise is that in addition to material conditions political choices are made and if we are to learn from history it is necessary to analyze those political developments openly and frankly.

[prolcon]

But why are political choices made they way they are? I don't know if I'd say every detail is "determined" in the sense that everything is meant to strictly follow a particular path without deviation. But matter has primacy over mind, and this is the premise of materialism. Mind influences matter, sure, but not really, if you think about it. The mind is just a pattern emergent from matter.

[TheOther]

Hi, socialism is the working class of a country becoming the president, congress members, ministers and military rulers of a nation. And for that country to be socialist the businesses would have to be owned by the workers, thru nationalization under workers-control. So, it is clear that no country right now has a working class ruling that nation, and the businesses owned by its own workers. There is no socialism today. Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and other left-leaning governments of Latin America are a mix of state-capitalism, regular private-sector capitalism, higher taxes on the rich class. And higher spending on social services. So i think that Cuba, Venezuela and Ecuador might be labeled as having social-democratic political systems, on transition toward socialism. But not socialism today.

.



I've come to understand that the USSR, China, North Korea, etc. are considered State Capitalist. I'm not so sure about Cuba... I haven't been able to find much on it, and I'm not well versed on its economy since it's a country that is rarely acknowledged outside of the Cold War here in the US. So, my question is, does any country in the world currently practice Socialism in some form?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

North Korea.

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Dragonball+North+Korea.+Oh+admin_cf8273_3168129.jp g

[prolcon]

Dude, is that Android No. 19 as Kim Jong-Un?

I get the feeling you and I could find common ground.

[GoddessCleoLover]

North Korea.

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Dragonball+North+Korea.+Oh+admin_cf8273_3168129.jp g

Are they still practicing or have they finally got it right?:rolleyes:

I hope you are joking. The DPRK is a hellhole. I would much rather live in Cuba or even China.

[TheOther]

Dear friends, too many divisions in the left. Lets just propose a political marriage of stalinists with anarchists, marxist-leninists, ultra-leftists, progressive liberal centrists and even poor capitalists who hate Democrats, Republicans, wars into a single political party. Into a big socialist labor front for the 2016 elections. Because if the left continues with its ideology wars between leftists, we will have Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, Jeb Bush or Paul Ryan. We will not be able to fix our teeths, to have great eye vision, and to have good health in a universal free health care system. We won't be able to join colleges. And not even to travel much because of the fascism of TSA agents at airports and the super expensive traveling costs as a result of airlines and transportation owned by corrupt oligarchies.

So, if your families, your elderly families, friends etc. let's propose a big front composed of all leftists despite their favorite leftist leader.





I'm new here, too, but I feel like I'm fairly familiar with "Stalinism," those ideological traditions that trace themselves to the Leninism of Stalin.



Not at all. If every "Stalinist" in the world were to reject Stalin and the government during his time wholesale, accomplishments and mistakes alike, anti-communist propaganda would insist that every last one of us wants to blow the guy. Do you think Bill O'Reilly buys it when a member of the CPUSA says they don't like Stalin? According to him, it's all an evil Marxist hoax. Hell, we reject Hitler, and anti-communist propaganda is unshakeable in its decision that Nazis and Commies are BFFs.



I've never met a "Stalinist" uncritical of North Korea, but, again, what good has it ever once done our movement to call it "capitalist" back to front? We need to understand North Korea in its historical development, not according to checklist of attributes that helps us decide whether it's "good" or not.



Not even kind of. This has been a strategy of the left for a long time and it has never once helped us. Not once, in any way, shape, or fun.

[Yuppie Grinder]

TheOther is clearly the foremost revolutionary theorist of the world.

[prolcon]

This has been a weird thread.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Are they still practicing or have they finally got it right?:rolleyes:

I hope you are joking. The DPRK is a hellhole. I would much rather live in Cuba or even China.

She's joking. Vox Populi is an Anarchist.

[Klaatu]

I think western europe (sweden, finland, etc.) practices a weak form of socialism in the welfare state. If you look at Marx's list of demands in the Communist Manifesto, a lot of them are now in practice in the welfare state: free education, government ownership of highways, rail lines, voting rights for all men and women, no child labor, heavy progressive tax rate. In addition you now have free health care and a national pension scheme in western europe.


I would like to see zero unemployment and control of top wages.

• in the US, people like Rush Limbaugh are paid $50 million annually, yet contribute nothing to the good of society. What a waste.

• ever notice that 5% unemployment is considered to be 'full employment?' these wealthy capitalists do not want zero unemployment, because a surplus of labor keeps labor rates low, because people compete for scarce jobs in a capitalistic country. If you have trouble finding a job, the state should provide you with one. That's because it is the duty of the community to help out those in need.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Thanks Gourmet Pez. Hope I didn't offend you Vox Populi. Andres Nin is my favorite Spanish Civil War personage but I also admire Buenaventura Durruti.