What place came the closest to socialism?

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

This is, obviously, an stupid question. We all basically agree that true socialism cannot develop in a single country. Even so, movement toward socialism is quite possible, and I'm wondering what you guys think moved the furthest in that direction.

I, for one, think Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War was a great social experiment--one of the few paces in history where worker's self-management was implemented. Even so, it also makes me somewhat doubtful of anarchism, because they were unable to defend themselves from Republican, and later Nationalist incursions. They only lasted about two years.:(

I'm trying to learn more about the different tendencies, so I'm really hoping to see some constructive, interesting debate here:lol:

[Sinister Intents]

Indeed Catalonia!!! Also Makhno's Free Territory, which got crushed by the Soviets I think. I'm not too voiced in history haha... but I should be, also I would kind of say the Soviet Union under Lenin from 1917 to 1921, but I don't know if this really counts.

[Sinister Intents]

The Paris Commune :)

Also this place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinaleda,_Spain :rolls eyes:

[Brutus]

Socialism, as in production for need, has never really been attempted. The few DotPs that have historically existed were too busy trying not to get massacred by counter-revolutionaries.

[helot]

I, for one, think Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War was a great social experiment--one of the few paces in history where worker's self-management was implemented. Even so, it also makes me somewhat doubtful of anarchism, because they were unable to defend themselves from Republican, and later Nationalist incursions. They only lasted about two years.:(


I don't think a small area being unable to defend itself is an indictment of anarchism. I think the CNT was ultimately incapable of bringing it to a successful conclusion even if things went perfectly not least because the IWA had already been crushed thus limiting its ability to spread outside the Iberian Peninsula.


I think Solidarity Federation has an interesting take on the CNT and the civil war in Fighting for Ourselves (chapter 3). (http://www.solfed.org.uk/cache/normal/www.selfed.org.uk/read/ffo_.html) It's pretty much the most thoughtful critique i've come across.

[reb]

It's not a question of coming close or not and especially not in the context of isolated uprisings.


I, for one, think Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War was a great social experiment--one of the few paces in history where worker's self-management was implemented.

Workers self management is not socialism. Workers self management is full compatible with the capitalist mode of production.


Socialism, as in production for need, has never really been attempted. The few DotPs that have historically existed were too busy trying not to get massacred by counter-revolutionaries.

Are you one of these Kautskyists that seems to be the internet thing of the now? The problem with what you are doing is that you are putting ideology ahead of material conditions so that you can have a political change that precedes a change in social-relations. DotPs historically existing and then saying that socialism has never really been attempted, as if socialism was a coat you could put on if you wanted and the DotP was a shirt you wear underneath it.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Of course it's not socialism. And it is compatible with capitalism. Even so, it does empower the workers, and that's what revolutionary leftism has always been about!

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

I don't think a small area being unable to defend itself is an indictment of anarchism.

Of course not, and you make a good point. Even so, to put things in perspective, Albania is a tiny little place too. Probably smaller than Catalonia. But Enver Hoxha's "communist" regime managed to hold on to power for nearly forty years. Of course, IMHO, Hoxha was a totalitarian butcher, but what I'm trying to say is that size isn't everything.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Revleft.

[reb]

Of course it's not socialism. And it is compatible with capitalism. Even so, it does empower the workers, and that's what revolutionary leftism has always been about!

Communism is about the abolition of capitalism. The formation of workers self management of capital isn't same as, and is contradictory to, the formation of workers who will abolish capital. "Revolutionary leftism" might be about what you said but it's such a vague term that can be used to describe anything, much like "workers self management".

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

What I am trying to say--and perhaps I was somewhat vague about it--is that worker's self management isn't socialism, or even a characteristic of socialism, but that it did give ordinary people more power, which makes it easier for a society to move away from capitalism.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Why are so many people criticizing the place? Of course they're not trying to incite world revolution. You have to be practical. You're all criticizing them for somehow supporting capitalism. I'm sorry but do you wear clothes? Do you eat food that you have to pay for? It is literally impossible to not give your money to capitalists in this society, and I think you all are living in a fantasy world. This is truly revolutionary what these people have done. Give them some credit, at least they are doing SOMETHING.

[Ismail]

Albania was the only country to actually pursue a revolutionary domestic and foreign line after the 50s, and considering that only Albania and the USSR under Stalin built socialism in the main, it's a tie.

"Workers' self-management" is a capitalist theory and practice, as Hoxha noted. Various petty-bourgeois "socialists" like Gaddafi and Ben Bella, inspired by Tito, utilized that demagogic slogan, as did the revisionists in Poland and Hungary.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

It's great to meet you, Ismail.:lol: I have seen many of your posts over the years, and while I can't say I agree with all of your positions, I have to say you always do a good job backing them up. You seem like a walking encyclopedia sometimes! (In a good way.)

You know more than pretty much anyone else here on Revleft about Hoxha, so I have a couple questions:

1. Why did Hoxha ban abortion in nearly all cases? Why did he ban homosexuality?
2. Is it true that his government implemented a law stating that anyone over the age of 11 conspiring against socialism would be executed?
3. Didn't the government ban all emigration out of the country? If so, was it justified?
4. Was the government an authoritarian dictatorship, or was it more democratic? Or somewhere in between?
5. A quick question about Stalin, who Hoxha admired: why did Stalin execute neary all of the Old Bolsheviks?

***

I'm not trying to taunt you or attack Hoxha. I just want to know the truth about his government.

[Ismail]

1. Why did Hoxha ban abortion in nearly all cases? Why did he ban homosexuality?Restrictions on abortion were based on the restrictions enacted in the USSR under Stalin. When after 1955 these restrictions were lifted and Eastern European countries followed, Albania did not follow. The Bolshevik view of abortion was that it was supposedly an "evil" that socialism would render unnecessary. Abortion was legalized on the basis that prohibiting it under Tsarism only harmed the mother, who was unable to care for a child. See the laws of 1920 and 1936 here: http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ca.firstwave/cpl-abortion/section5.htm (see also Krupskaya's remarks (http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ca.firstwave/cpl-abortion/section6.htm))

The issue of abortion was publicly debated in the USSR in the 30s (see Davies, Popular Opinion in Stalin's Russia), there was no "moral" element to the debate, it was framed solely in terms of if mothers could maintain children or not. Abortion was also widely seen as a dangerous procedure at the time (as noted by the Webbs in their work Soviet Communism, written when abortion was legal; Soviet medical authorities during the 20s and early 30s were cautious about its purported effects on the body.)

Anyway, in Albania, as one account notes, "Abortions are allowed after consultation with a committee of doctors. Birth control is a matter of personal choice. There is no family planning in the sense of a national campaign to limit births because Albania is an underdeveloped country in which all births are welcomed." (Ash, Pickaxe and Rifle, 1974, pp. 238-239.)

As for homosexuality, Muho Asllani, who during the socialist period was a prominent party official, said recently that, "I heard the word homosexual a few years after the collapse of the communist system and did not believe that there was such a phenomenon. I speak of gays, and lesbians also. Homosexuality, drugs, AIDS and many other developments had never been the subject of discussion, as all were unknown to us. Indeed, I was amazed when I learned that hashish was a kind of drug, because our grandmothers used it to put children to sleep."

Homosexuality was not treated well in any society, bourgeois or socialist, back then. It is worth noting though that the GDR, the most "western" of the Eastern European states, decriminalized homosexual acts in the early 70s and by the 80s East German medical officials were advising against the discrimination of gays in blood donations. In the USSR Tsarist-era laws relating to homosexuality had been abolished, but medical consensus continued to see it as an "aberration" and throughout the 20s homosexual relations were repressed to some degree in Central Asia, where such relations were associated by the authorities with pedophilia and misogyny (as they were in Albania.) At any rate no prominent Bolshevik openly spoke about homosexuality, and when Trotsky wrote The Revolution Betrayed he criticized the decision to restrict abortions while ignoring the restrictions which were placed on homosexuality not long before.

See also: http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/lgbtseries1007.php


2. Is it true that his government implemented a law stating that anyone over the age of 11 conspiring against socialism would be executed?This was an early 50s emergency law implemented when the Soviet embassy was bombed. The age was set at 12 and only applied if the person carried out similar acts, not simply "conspiring." The 1977 penal code had the age for capital punishment set at 18.


3. Didn't the government ban all emigration out of the country? If so, was it justified?There were emigration restrictions in the USSR as well. On this subject see: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2640592&postcount=45


4. Was the government an authoritarian dictatorship, or was it more democratic? Or somewhere in between?It was a dictatorship of the proletariat. You'll have to specify what you mean by "democratic," do you mean in terms of elections? Criticism? workers' control? Etc. On the latter two see: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2596922&postcount=2


5. A quick question about Stalin, who Hoxha admired: why did Stalin execute neary all of the Old Bolsheviks?Probably the best account of the Soviet charges against Zinoviev, Bukharin, etc. is this 1945 work (see the "Book Three" section): https://web.archive.org/web/20120220121444/http://www.shunpiking.com/books/GC/

[Bolshevik Sickle]

Revleft.
No. When you donate to the website it only changes your status, it doesn't get redistributed to other members.
It's certainly not anarchist considering we have moderators.

[Thirsty Crow]

This is, obviously, an stupid question.
Well yeah.
Obviously Yugoslavia.


Nah just kidding.

The question is really pointless and cannot be answered.

[Per Levy]

Why are so many people criticizing the place? Of course they're not trying to incite world revolution. You have to be practical. You're all criticizing them for somehow supporting capitalism. I'm sorry but do you wear clothes? Do you eat food that you have to pay for? It is literally impossible to not give your money to capitalists in this society, and I think you all are living in a fantasy world. This is truly revolutionary what these people have done. Give them some credit, at least they are doing SOMETHING.

before im going to criticize your post for obvious reasons id like to know what "the place" is?

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

He's referring to anarchist Catalonia.

[reb]

Albania was the only country to actually pursue a revolutionary domestic and foreign line after the 50s, and considering that only Albania and the USSR under Stalin built socialism in the main, it's a tie.

"Workers' self-management" is a capitalist theory and practice, as Hoxha noted. Various petty-bourgeois "socialists" like Gaddafi and Ben Bella, inspired by Tito, utilized that demagogic slogan, as did the revisionists in Poland and Hungary.

Ah, the balkanized maoist strikes again to defend his beloved Albania. This whole concept of building "socialism" (notice the great man theory again, crucial for the bourgeois minded stalinist) is totally bogus. Constructing "socialism" is constructing capitalism, which fits in perfectly with your run of the mill social-democracy hence the admittance here of "in the main" and the need for world revolution to go from "socialism" to communism.

The second point is even more laughable. There was no worker control over the economy at all in Albania, much like in the USSR. The proletariat was merely "consulted" as another one of these childish weasels admitted, rather shamefacedly.

Socialism then for a stalinist amounts to constructing a capitalist economy and having a "communist" party in charge to direct it. Social-democracy at it's finest.

[Ismail]

Ah, the balkanized maoist strikes again to defend his beloved Albania.And when I point out that it makes no sense to call Hoxha a "Maoist" you've never struck back, because your sole attempt (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2689912&postcount=18) made you look like an imbecile. Hoxha noted that Mao was not a Marxist-Leninist and that Maoism constitutes a right-wing deviation from Marxism-Leninism.


This whole concept of building "socialism" (notice the great man theory again, crucial for the bourgeois minded stalinist)I was unaware socialism was a man, let alone a great one. If so I'd certainly like to meet him.


Constructing "socialism" is constructing capitalism, which fits in perfectly with your run of the mill social-democracy hence the admittance here of "in the main" and the need for world revolution to go from "socialism" to communism.Ignoring, of course, the fact that social-democrats found the USSR under Lenin and Stalin and Albania reprehensible and endorsed their overthrow.


Socialism then for a stalinist amounts to constructing a capitalist economy and having a "communist" party in charge to direct it.If a self-described "communist party" were all that was needed, I'm pretty sure I'd be praising the likes of Khrushchev and Deng right now.

Anyway, let's see what Stalin himself (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv16n1/china.htm) had to say on the subject:

What are these general laws of building of socialism?

1. Above all it is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the workers’ and peasants’ State, a particular form of the union of these classes under the obligatory leadership of the most revolutionary class in history, the class of workers. Only this class is capable of building socialism and suppressing the resistance of the exploiters and petty bourgeoisie.

2. Socialised property of the main instruments and means of production. Expropriation of all the large factories and their management by the state.

3. Nationalisation of all capitalist banks, the merging of all of them into a single state bank and strict regulation of its functioning by the state.

4. The scientific and planned conduct of the national economy from a single centre. Obligatory use of the following principle in the building of socialism: from each according to his capacity, to each according to his work, distribution of the material good depending upon the quality and quantity of the work of each person.

5. Obligatory domination of Marxist-Leninist ideology.

6. Creation of armed forces that would allow the defence of the accomplishments of the revolution and always remember that any revolution is worth anything only if it is capable of defending itself.

7. Ruthless armed suppression of counter revolutionaries and the foreign agents.As for your comments on workers' control, they demonstrate that for all your protestations, your conception of it is essentially Titoite. "Consultation" referred to the act of drafting five-year plans, an activity that involved the workers of individual factories just as it involved the proletarian state, which was the only institution to actually have at its disposal the statistics and organization necessary to plan the economy on a national scale.


Social-democracy at it's finest.The irony is that you've come to the defense of social-democratic theses on religion and other subjects. Your attempt to use "ultra-revolutionary" verbiage only gets you so far. As Stalin pointed out, "The 'Left' deviation is a shadow of the Right deviation. Lenin used to say, referring to the Otzovists, that the 'Lefts' are Mensheviks, only turned inside-out. That is quite true." (Works Vol. 11, 1954, p. 289.)

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Why obligatory domination of ml ideology?Are u educating or doing propaganda?

[Ismail]

Why obligatory domination of ml ideology?Are u educating or doing propaganda?Because Marxism-Leninism expresses the interests of the working-class, because it is the most revolutionary ideology befitting the era of proletarian revolution. What it means is that capitalist and other, petty-bourgeois ideologies are opposed and that the state works to disseminate the Marxist-Leninist ideology. It also means, as the 1976 Constitution (http://bjoerna.dk/dokumentation/Albanian-Constitution-1976.htm) of Albania noted, "The entire socialist social order is developed on the basis of its principles."

Furthermore, from a 1980 Albanian work (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/albaniaconst.htm):

The principle that Marxism-Leninism is the dominant ideology of the socialist society and state constitutes one of the most important expressions and the ideological basis of the leading role of the working class and its party in socialism. On the other hand, abandonment of the principles of Marxism-Leninism and embracement of revisionism, which is an expression of the influence of the bourgeois ideology in the worker and communist movement, constitute a clear evidence and the ideological basis of the loss of the leading role of the working class in the former socialist countries...

The enemies of socialism have pinned their hopes on the spreading of their bourgeois and revisionist ideology, which they regard as the vanguard of the political counter-revolution and military aggression. Hence the need for the intensification of the ideological struggle to make the Marxist-Leninist ideology, morality and world-outlook prevail, on a nation-wide scale and even in the consciousness of every worker. This is a task of vital importance, because the direction of the activity of the people, whether it is carried out for the benefit of the revolution or counter-revolution, depends on the ideology which prevails in the minds of people and their world-outlook. Thus, the victories achieved in the political and economic field are safeguarded and the complete and final victory of the socialist road over the capitalist road is ensured only when the complete triumph of the revolution is secured in the ideological field, too, not only on a national but also international scale...

Socialism, as an order based on social ownership of the means of production, is pervaded by collectivism and combats any manifestation of selfishness and bourgeois individualism. In socialism, first-rate importance is devoted to “the conciliation of the interests of the individual and the socialist society, giving priority,” as the Constitution says, “to the general interest” (Article 39). If the contrary is the case, as the experience of the countries where the revisionist cliques have come to power shows, the way is laid open to the destruction of socialist consciousness, the spreading of bourgeois ideology, the degeneration of socialism and restoration of capitalism. This occurs because at the very root of the bourgeois and revisionist ideology, of all forms of ideology of the exploiting classes lie personal interest, selfishness and individualism, stemming from private ownership on which these ideologies are based.Since the new society, as Marx noted, experiences the birth pangs based on the remnants of the old society, the dominance of Marxism-Leninism is of fundamental importance.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Ismail, let's examine a bit closer the 'laws of building socialism' you quote directly from Stalin himself:


1. Above all it is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the workers’ and peasants’ State, a particular form of the union of these classes under the obligatory leadership of the most revolutionary class in history, the class of workers. Only this class is capable of building socialism and suppressing the resistance of the exploiters and petty bourgeoisie.

This is almost non-sensical, especially considering the ahistoric nature of the quote. Stalin, in talking of "the workers' and peasants' State", is clearly referring specifically to early 20th-century Russia, since this particular union of classes simply doesn't exist any more across large swathes of the world.

Secondly, the quote is laced with appeals to rhetorical device and emotion. On what basis is the proletariat the most revolutionary class in history? It is the only exploited class that has failed to instil a successful revolution against its exploiter; the slaves came to see to it that they were emancipated, and the serfs largely started to free themselves from bondage as early as the 13th century in Britain, for example. The working class' status as the most, or least, or middling, revolutionary class in history is almost irrelevant, too. Why are we even comparing it to other revolutionary exploited classes in history? The point is that we want to abolish class, not glory one class ahead of others. The working class seizes the state, then what? In fact, row back a bit. How can a class the size of the working class, seize the state? It can't. It is practically speaking too large. So a group has to seize power on behalf of the working class. And then what? We are defined, socially, by our relationship to the means of production; this exploitative social relationship is enforced and supported by the state. So one group seizes the state, then what? They rule on behalf of the working class? In favour of the working class? No chance. As we have seen many times, one a group seizes state power, their social status is significantly and irrevocably separated from that of the wider working class, and thus their motivation to abolish class, abolish the state instruments they now control, subside significantly.


2. Socialised property of the main instruments and means of production. Expropriation of all the large factories and their management by the state.

Socialism is, we can surely agree, stateless, classless, and moneyless. That is a significant break from capitalist society, which relies on exploitative class relations, relies on money (in one form or another) as a medium of exchange, and on the state to enforce by whatever means the rule of capital and maintain the social status of the capitalist.

Whoever, therefore, aims to 'manage the state', does not aim to abolish it. Not really, not seriously. If you want to abolish something, you abolish it, you do not manage it. Once you manage an economic instrument, it logically becomes your interest to manage it successfully, not run it into the ground. Thus, attempting to manage the state changes your aims from 'abolition of the state', to 'maintaining the health and position of the state in society', which is not compatible with building socialism.


3. Nationalisation of all capitalist banks, the merging of all of them into a single state bank and strict regulation of its functioning by the state.

It was the bank whose rise, along with that of the state in its modern form, allowed the development of the social structure that exists within capitalist society. We can agree that the aim of a socialist society is that it should abolish money. What is the purpose of a bank? To control and monitor the money supply? Given that inflation is a capitalist phenomenon (always and everywhere yes) in that it is an un-avoidable consequence of a monetary economy, we can also say that the purpose of a bank is to control the expansion of the monetary supply. Not the abolition of money, but its expansion, its pervasion into every crevice of society. Banks, hitherto, have expanded from humble money-lending beginnings, to the regulation of inflation by basing currency on a metal base (i.e. the gold standard), to the rapid acceleration of the expansion of the money supply through the introduction of credit money, particularly in the past 70-80 years or so.

Anybody wanting to build socialism by making banking the centre of the economy, by creating a super-behemoth of a bank, has either lost sight of the moneyless aspect of a socialist economy, or is lying in that their end goal is not a moneyless economy, not ever.


4. The scientific and planned conduct of the national economy from a single centre. Obligatory use of the following principle in the building of socialism: from each according to his capacity, to each according to his work, distribution of the material good depending upon the quality and quantity of the work of each person.

This is about as bourgeois as it gets. Basically, this is the same philosophical under-pinning that 'libertarian capitalists' use to justify their support for its ideology: meritocracy. She who produces most wins. She who produces less, suffers. This is thoroughly ahistoric: we do not start from an equal base, physically, emotionally, psychologically, or socially. These factors make a genuine meritocracy both impossible and un-desirable. Undesirable in that it favours, in almost all cases, inequitable outcomes, and impossible in that you will never have a society that doesn't bias one way or the other - thus inequalities will always become more and more entrenched; in sum, this 'meritocratic' ideology is incompatible with building socialism.


5. Obligatory domination of Marxist-Leninist ideology.

That can fuck right off. I don't think many people would be found to agree with this, and rightly so.


6. Creation of armed forces that would allow the defence of the accomplishments of the revolution and always remember that any revolution is worth anything only if it is capable of defending itself.

OK, shame that in practice this resulted in death squads, show trials, and was basically used to crush dissent against Marxism-Leninism, the Bolshevik Party and the ruling few, rather than to defend the building of socialism, which according to the above 'laws' wasn't happening anyway.


7. Ruthless armed suppression of counter revolutionaries and the foreign agents.

Lovely bit of jingoism to finish it off. Similar criticism I made to point 6 applies here - plus I would add that 'ruthless armed suppression of counter revolutionaries' gives undue licence to whoever wields state power. A better principle would be 'constant commitment by the free populace to build socialism and nullify the possibility of a return to capitalist social relations, a wieldy state, or exploitation in any form'.

[Lokomotive293]

I love how you start your thread claiming that "we all basically agree" on something, which is in truth one of the most dividing issues among the revolutionary left. I would say Cuba, btw, for many different reasons.

[Ismail]

This is almost non-sensical, especially considering the ahistoric nature of the quote. Stalin, in talking of "the workers' and peasants' State", is clearly referring specifically to early 20th-century Russia, since this particular union of classes simply doesn't exist any more across large swathes of the world.Keep in mind he was talking to a CPC delegation. In states where the peasantry didn't exist Soviet materials (and Lenin and Stalin, of course) obviously just stressed the working-class, rather than the workers and peasants with leadership belonging to the former.


On what basis is the proletariat the most revolutionary class in history?If you're seriously asking this, and not just to make an anarchistic "critique" of Leninism, then I'd direct you to the first chapter of the Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm): "Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product." And obviously its status as the most revolutionary class "in history" stems from the fact that only it can achieve the abolition of class society and all that derives from it.

On the banks, Lenin pointed out the importance of the subject as follows (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/04.htm):

Only by nationalising the banks can the state put itself in a position to know where and how, whence and when, millions and billions of rubles flow. And only control over the banks, over the centre, over the pivot and chief mechanism of capitalist circulation, would make it possible to organise real and not fictitious control over all economic life, over the production and distribution of staple goods, and organise that "regulation of economic life" which otherwise is inevitably doomed to remain a ministerial phrase designed to fool the common people.
This is about as bourgeois as it gets.Which is a strange claim to make. As Marx noted (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm),

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

No. When you donate to the website it only changes your status, it doesn't get redistributed to other members.
It's certainly not anarchist considering we have moderators.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1130&pictureid=11467

[Jolly Red Giant]

Ah, the balkanized maoist strikes again to defend his beloved Albania. This whole concept of building "socialism" (notice the great man theory again, crucial for the bourgeois minded stalinist) is totally bogus. Constructing "socialism" is constructing capitalism, which fits in perfectly with your run of the mill social-democracy hence the admittance here of "in the main" and the need for world revolution to go from "socialism" to communism.

The second point is even more laughable. There was no worker control over the economy at all in Albania, much like in the USSR. The proletariat was merely "consulted" as another one of these childish weasels admitted, rather shamefacedly.

Socialism then for a stalinist amounts to constructing a capitalist economy and having a "communist" party in charge to direct it. Social-democracy at it's finest.
The building and construction that Hoxha did was building and constructing one million one-man concrete pill boxes to defend Albania against USA, USSR and Yugoslav aggression. They still litter the Albanian landscape.

http://www.mariusztravel.com/zdjecia/albania/12_albania_bunkry.JPG

[o well this is ok I guess]

If you're seriously asking this, and not just to make an anarchistic "critique" of Leninism, then I'd direct you to the first chapter of the Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm): "Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product." And obviously its status as the most revolutionary class "in history" stems from the fact that only it can achieve the abolition of class society and all that derives from it. so being historically the most revolutionary has more to do with theory than history?

[Ismail]

The building and construction that Hoxha did was building and constructing one million one-man concrete pill boxes to defend Albania against USA, USSR and Yugoslav aggression. They still litter the Albanian landscape.To reiterate from earlier threads: Albania's army was not the center of the country's defensive strategy, instead the armed populace was to resist external invasion. The context of the bunker-building campaign was the Soviet social-imperialists invading Czechoslovakia, while Greece had long since declared itself in a "state of war" with Albania (which wasn't lifted by them until 1987) and Albania had been the only Eastern European country where the West tried to overthrow it through external infiltration of armed guerrillas (in the 1949-1952 period.) The bunker campaign did not put a dent in the continued construction of further educational establishments, health services, and other infrastructure.

For years you've been sporadically popping up in threads that mention Albania and all you've been able to "contribute" is to point out they built bunkers. It's a red herring.


so being historically the most revolutionary has more to do with theory than history?I'd say history has demonstrated the revolutionary nature of the working-class in 1917 and elsewhere. The peasantry is certainly a dying class, while the petty-bourgeoisie can only enjoy an overall precarious position under capitalism, and its decay has been recognized pretty much everywhere. The lumpenproletariat and sudents are not a uniformly revolutionary (much less leading) strata either. The revisionists, whether of the Maoist, Soviet, or Western (e.g. Marcuse) variety, upheld such classes/strata as being the gravediggers of capitalism, and they were wrong.

[Five Year Plan]

The building and construction that Hoxha did was building and constructing one million one-man concrete pill boxes to defend Albania against USA, USSR and Yugoslav aggression. They still litter the Albanian landscape.

http://www.mariusztravel.com/zdjecia/albania/12_albania_bunkry.JPG

Those aren't pillboxes. They are imperial probe droids! It's a good bet that the Empire knows we're here!

[Brotto Rühle]

Those aren't pillboxes. They are imperial probe droids! It's a good bet that the Empire knows we're here!

"No, these are not the anti-revisionists you are looking for."

http://s27.postimg.org/aa5mr35v7/sovtroopers.png

Note: I would have made a Hoxha in a Obi Wan outfit, but I'm lazy.

[Prometeo liberado]

Revleft.

Close, but rather my garage and the dreams I had for it if I were to ever get one. Not the dream mind you but getting the garage, or for christ sakes just the house that would go with it. Yeah that is socialism as I know it, dreams just out of reach for me. This is 2014, we personalize our socialism now.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I'd say history has demonstrated the revolutionary nature of the working-class in 1917 and elsewhere. The peasantry is certainly a dying class, while the petty-bourgeoisie can only enjoy an overall precarious position under capitalism, and its decay has been recognized pretty much everywhere. The lumpenproletariat and sudents are not a uniformly revolutionary (much less leading) strata either. The revisionists, whether of the Maoist, Soviet, or Western (e.g. Marcuse) variety, upheld such classes/strata as being the gravediggers of capitalism, and they were wrong. A class can make revolution, but what makes it "most revolutionary"? Do you mean to say that the working class has made more revolution than the bourgeoisie, or that it is simply most revolutionary regardless?

[Ismail]

A class can make revolution, but what makes it "most revolutionary"? Do you mean to say that the working class has made more revolution than the bourgeoisie, or that it is simply most revolutionary regardless?It is the most revolutionary class in that it is the only one that can actually abolish classes, and is the only class in modern society capable of carrying out a revolution to begin with. As is made clear in the Manifesto: "The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat." This is the point of Marx's words that the proletariat has nothing to lose but its chains; it has no property to defend nor is its existence based upon the need to keep proletarians in line on behalf of the bourgeoisie.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Scary Storm Troopers! Darth Hoxha is altering the deal! It's a trap!:laugh:

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Hoxha meeting Stalin after many years:When we last met i was but the apprentice now I am the master.

[Ismail]

Hoxha meeting Stalin after many years:When we last met i was but the apprentice now I am the master.As an aside, he did write With Stalin (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/stalin/intro.htm) in 1979. As he put it: "we had always dreamed, night and day, of meeting Stalin... During the twelve days of our stay in Moscow we met Comrade Stalin several times, and the talks which we held with him, his sincere, comradely advice and instructions, have remained and will remain forever dear to us." And as he wrote in his introduction to the work:

We will never be deceived by the flattery and tricks of enemies, whether internal or external, but will continue the class struggle, both internally and externally, and will always be vigilant towards their evil activity. Otherwise, if we had not proved vigilant, if we had not applied the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin faithfully, Albania would have sunk into the mire of modern revisionism, would no longer be independent and socialist, and we would no longer have the dictatorship of the proletariat, but slavery to the imperialist-revisionist powers.

Our Party and people will continue the road of Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin and Joseph Stalin. The future generations of socialist Albania will loyally follow the line of their beloved Party. The Albanians, communists and non-party patriots, bow in respect to the memory of the glorious teacher, Joseph Stalin. On the occasion of the centenary of his birth, we remember with devotion the man who helped us, who enabled us to multiply the forces of our people whom the Party made the all-powerful masters of their own destiny. For the deed of the liberation and the construction of socialism in our country also we are indebted to the internationalist aid of Stalin. His rich and very valuable experience has guided us on our road and in our activity. In this jubilee year, our Party is engaged in continuous wide-ranging activity to make the glorious life and work of the great Marxist-Leninist Joseph Stalin even better known. All the activity of our Party, from its founding to the present day, testifies to its love and respect for and loyalty to the immortal doctrine of our great classics, and hence to the ideas of Joseph Stalin.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Well, this thread took a strange turn.
Anywhom, given the question that kicked off the thread, wouldn't it make more sense to point out places that came closer to socialism than Albania, and explain why, then to make weird cheap-shots (pillboxes don't really say much about a mode of production one way or the other).

Anyway, my answer is the Haudenosaunee.
Partially I'm being sincere (classless, moneyless, and stateless), and partially I'm trying to stir shit, since I can think of a variety of problematizing factors.

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

OK, shame that in practice this resulted in death squads, show trials, and was basically used to crush dissent against Marxism-Leninism, the Bolshevik Party and the ruling few, rather than to defend the building of socialism, which according to the above 'laws' wasn't happening anyway.


Sounds very much like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and with active military membership numbers like these.........http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=North-Korea

I was always curious as to how the armed forces (if any) of a genuinely socialist and proletarian government would look like. I have heard from others that only volunteering militias would provide the workers' defense without risk of bureaucratizing and the politicization of those meant to defend any and every citizen of this workers'... state?

[Ismail]

Sounds very much like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and with active military membership numbers like these.........http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=North-Korea

I was always curious as to how the armed forces (if any) of a genuinely socialist and proletarian government would look like. I have heard from others that only volunteering militias would provide the workers' defense without risk of bureaucratizing and the politicization of those meant to defend any and every citizen of this workers'... state?Albania abolished military ranks in the late 60s and, as I noted in an earlier post, its defense strategy was based on an armed populace resisting external invasion. Weapons training was mandatory for everyone and many people had guns in their homes.

In the DPRK the military has more power than the party and in fact the DPRK's ideology claims that the armed forces are the vanguard of the country, not the proletariat. Outside of some token efforts at identifying with the populace like partaking in construction endeavors and whatnot alongside workers, it's the opposite of what a proletarian army looks like.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Well, this thread took a strange turn.
Anywhom, given the question that kicked off the thread, wouldn't it make more sense to point out places that came closer to socialism than Albania, and explain why, then to make weird cheap-shots (pillboxes don't really say much about a mode of production one way or the other).

Anyway, my answer is the Haudenosaunee.
Partially I'm being sincere (classless, moneyless, and stateless), and partially I'm trying to stir shit, since I can think of a variety of problematizing factors.

Fascinating position! You do make a good point:lol:. According to Wikipedia:

[The Iroquois economy]...was based on communal production....this system was characterized by such components as common ownership of land, division of labor by gender, and trade mostly based on gift economy...

The tribe owned all lands but gave out tracts to the different clans for further distribution among households for cultivation. The land would be redistributed among the households every few years, and a clan could request a redistribution of tracts when the Clan Mothers' Council gathered. Those clans that abused their allocated land or otherwise did not take care of it would be warned and eventually punished by the Clan Mothers' Council by having the land redistributed to another clan...

The threat of theft was almost nonexistent, since little was held by the individual except basic tools and implements that were so prevalent they had little value.

***

Sounds like primitive communism to me.

[IBleedRed]

Ah, the balkanized maoist strikes again to defend his beloved Albania. This whole concept of building "socialism" (notice the great man theory again, crucial for the bourgeois minded stalinist) is totally bogus. Constructing "socialism" is constructing capitalism, which fits in perfectly with your run of the mill social-democracy hence the admittance here of "in the main" and the need for world revolution to go from "socialism" to communism.

The second point is even more laughable. There was no worker control over the economy at all in Albania, much like in the USSR. The proletariat was merely "consulted" as another one of these childish weasels admitted, rather shamefacedly.

Socialism then for a stalinist amounts to constructing a capitalist economy and having a "communist" party in charge to direct it. Social-democracy at it's finest.

What a typical, un-insightful, unhelpful post, devoid of any details or sources, derailing the 20th century socialist experiments without seeking to explain them besides using the same tired buzz-words and blaming everything on some "evil dictator".

We might all agree that Albania, the USSR, etc, were not socialist. But I want some real thought-out answers, not the same high-school level drivel that gets repeated by so-called socialists time and again. As a member of the revolutionary left, you have a responsibility to understand and to explain the history of socialist experiments giving arguments that have real explanatory power. At least Ismail is detailed and backs up everything he says with sources.

[reb]

What a typical, un-insightful, unhelpful post, devoid of any details or sources, derailing the 20th century socialist experiments without seeking to explain them besides using the same tired buzz-words and blaming everything on some "evil dictator".

We might all agree that Albania, the USSR, etc, were not socialist. But I want some real thought-out answers, not the same high-school level drivel that gets repeated by so-called socialists time and again. As a member of the revolutionary left, you have a responsibility to understand and to explain the history of socialist experiments giving arguments that have real explanatory power. At least Ismail is detailed and backs up everything he says with sources.

If think they were socialist then you can't explain away how they collapsed without resorting to idealism. If such is the case, you're probably a social-democrat who labors under the disillusional idea of a vanguard party. If you don't know what socialism and what capitalism is then how can you even pretend to be a socialist? Socialist experiments, please. The Russian revolution was squashed under the heel of the soviet state. There were no other revolutions where the proletariat gained an upper hand. There was no proletarian revolution in any of the soviet-bloc countries. Ismail just quotes you crack pot historians who also don't know what socialism is in the marxian sense, and neither he nor the people he quotes, can provide you an understanding of the marxian conception of capital or even a marxian understanding of what revolution and socialism are.

[Ismail]

If think they were socialist then you can't explain away how they collapsed without resorting to idealism. If such is the case, you're probably a social-democrat who labors under the disillusional idea of a vanguard party. If you don't know what socialism and what capitalism is then how can you even pretend to be a socialist? Socialist experiments, please. The Russian revolution was squashed under the heel of the soviet state. There were no other revolutions where the proletariat gained an upper hand. There was no proletarian revolution in any of the soviet-bloc countries. Ismail just quotes you crack pot historians who also don't know what socialism is in the marxian sense, and neither he nor the people he quotes, can provide you an understanding of the marxian conception of capital or even a marxian understanding of what revolution and socialism are.I'm still waiting for your reply to my post, although considering how unsubstantiated this one is, I should probably conclude that I wasted my time on an idiot who covers up his superficial knowledge with "revolutionary" verbiage.

Edit: If nothing else I'd like you to explain how Hoxha's theoretical views constitute "balkanized Maoism," not because you'll actually come up with anything damning, but because it's obvious to me you're full of shit.

[G4b3n]

I'm still waiting for your reply to my post, although considering how unsubstantiated this one is, I should probably conclude that I wasted my time on an idiot who covers up his superficial knowledge with "revolutionary" verbiage.

Edit: If nothing else I'd like you to explain how Hoxha's theoretical views constitute "balkanized Maoism," not because you'll actually come up with anything damning, but because it's obvious to me you're full of shit.

Is it a requirement for Stalinists to be elitist and condescending or does it just happen that way?

[Ismail]

Is it a requirement for Stalinists to be elitist and condescending or does it just happen that way?How strange, it is precisely reb who comes across as elitist and condescending to me, as do various left-communists on RevLeft who are quick to pose as authorities on Marxism while contributing nothing of value to any discussion other than absurd epithets.

[IBleedRed]

Is it a requirement for Stalinists to be elitist and condescending or does it just happen that way?
I have to throw in with Ismail on this one.

The leftists that like to throw around buzzwords and act like purists when talking about real history are, at best, unrealistic and uninformative, and at worst, harmful to the movement.

Explain yourself. Be detailed. Use sources when you can. Don't just throw around words like "balkanized Maoist" without explaining anything. Anybody can toss words around.

[Ritzy Cat]

As was previously stated in this thread, any whiff of socialism was inhaled by the huge noses of the reactionary American, British, French, etc.

I don't think we'll ever be able to come close to socialism in its actual terms until the imperialist leaders of the western world stop trying to be the world police and actually stop holding everyone else by the neck.

[IBleedRed]

As was previously stated in this thread, any whiff of socialism was inhaled by the huge noses of the reactionary American, British, French, etc.

I don't think we'll ever be able to come close to socialism in its actual terms until the imperialist leaders of the western world stop trying to be the world police and actually stop holding everyone else by the neck.
Then you'll be waiting a very long time. Imperialists will never stop until you stop them.

And there are imperialists in the East as well.

[Skyhilist]

Well, prior to capitalism there was pretty much global primitive communism so there's that. There aren't really degrees of "how close to socialism" a place is. Either the whole world (not one place) is socialist or nowhere is socialist.

[Ritzy Cat]

Then you'll be waiting a very long time. Imperialists will never stop until you stop them.

And there are imperialists in the East as well.

I am referring more to the prolific nature of these time periods. The McCarthy or Thatcher era, for example, made it their duties to publicly denounce communism and instill anti-communist feelings among their populace. The Cold War was a reminder of Westerners every day "Communism is Evil".

Today, we aren't reminded daily of the "evils" of communism, but the older generations still exhibit these anticommunist tendencies that they grew up with. While most people still bash communism and socialism, and while many of which do not even how it works, it's more so that their outright, staunch, despite uninformed viewpoint will prevent them from letting anything like that happen.

I apologize if I confused you - you are right about the imperialists being in the east, but I have a tendency to describe West as NATO, and East as the Soviet bloc. Although that is a bit of an all-encompassing (and archaic) term, since both are corrupt in their own nature, more so just the anticommunism in the West is much stronger than in the East, as far as I've learned. This is of course not to say that anyone in the East isn't an imperialist of course.

Perhaps when there is nobody alive to remember prolifically, the events of the cold war, the feelings of blind anticommunism will slowly die out through the generations. This is the biggest wall the revolution has to overcome, staunch disapproval of something they do not even understand. But we cannot blame them because they were fed this stuff daily, and there isn't even room to allow communism to rise itself (the "two party system" for example, in USA). Perhaps this can be solved by informing the proletarian class, establishing class consciousness of the workers. I'm not going to go off on an idealist tangent about this subject, but yes that is the key to overcoming a bourgeoisie state.

But once people stop associating Communism with, Soviet Russia, with, Cold War, with Fear of Being Nuked At Any Time, at least people will be open to hearing such ideas.

I may be a bit optimistic. It is just my hope that this will tone down a bit, so people will grow tired and be anxious for change in their conditions.

There exists a wall yet beyond this one - the wall of the bourgeousie's desire to maintain their private property and capital. This issue will ALWAYS be there, and it will be an inevitable wall that the revolution must break down with battering rams and catapults.

I don't know exactly when this hypothetical time I think will happen when a revolution will be "appropriate". Appropriate as in, timely so that we are able to easily influence the tired workers to fight for the revolutionary cause. But if they are still infected with the disease of misinformed anticommunism, it will be much more difficult, hard to convince them of the reality. It is certainly doable. A revolution could happen at this point in time. But it would not in any way be easy, and would take some sheer brilliance at the hands of a speaker who could captivate the proletarian class to free itself from its chains.

Yes, revolution sooner than later is ideal. The conflicting parties here are the imperialist states & bourgeoisie, against the revolutionary movement. We have to bring the workers to class-consciousness before anything can be done. I think that as we increase the overall class-consciousness of the workers, this will inherently reduce the power of the state & bourgeoisie so that a revolution will be reasonably doable. I just think that bringing all these workers to the hindsight of the capitalist state will actually take a while. Once we have reached that point though, the state will be too weak without their workers to carry on. Since the bourgeoisie rely on proletarian input, and they have no input remaining, the revolution will be much easier to spread throughout the country, and eventually the whole world.

I do agree with what you are saying, imperialists must be stopped because they won't just stop themselves. I just think we have to find a "reasonable" time when it is "doable"... By raising the proletariat to class-consciousness while weakening the physical and social power of the state. That process will take a while, and in my eyes, that is what is necessary for revolution.

[Geiseric]

Restrictions on abortion were based on the restrictions enacted in the USSR under Stalin. When after 1955 these restrictions were lifted and Eastern European countries followed, Albania did not follow. The Bolshevik view of abortion was that it was supposedly an "evil" that socialism would render unnecessary. Abortion was legalized on the basis that prohibiting it under Tsarism only harmed the mother, who was unable to care for a child. See the laws of 1920 and 1936 here: http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ca.firstwave/cpl-abortion/section5.htm (see also Krupskaya's remarks (http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ca.firstwave/cpl-abortion/section6.htm))

The issue of abortion was publicly debated in the USSR in the 30s (see Davies, Popular Opinion in Stalin's Russia), there was no "moral" element to the debate, it was framed solely in terms of if mothers could maintain children or not. Abortion was also widely seen as a dangerous procedure at the time (as noted by the Webbs in their work Soviet Communism, written when abortion was legal; Soviet medical authorities during the 20s and early 30s were cautious about its purported effects on the body.)

Anyway, in Albania, as one account notes, "Abortions are allowed after consultation with a committee of doctors. Birth control is a matter of personal choice. There is no family planning in the sense of a national campaign to limit births because Albania is an underdeveloped country in which all births are welcomed." (Ash, Pickaxe and Rifle, 1974, pp. 238-239.)

As for homosexuality, Muho Asllani, who during the socialist period was a prominent party official, said recently that, "I heard the word homosexual a few years after the collapse of the communist system and did not believe that there was such a phenomenon. I speak of gays, and lesbians also. Homosexuality, drugs, AIDS and many other developments had never been the subject of discussion, as all were unknown to us. Indeed, I was amazed when I learned that hashish was a kind of drug, because our grandmothers used it to put children to sleep."

Homosexuality was not treated well in any society, bourgeois or socialist, back then. It is worth noting though that the GDR, the most "western" of the Eastern European states, decriminalized homosexual acts in the early 70s and by the 80s East German medical officials were advising against the discrimination of gays in blood donations. In the USSR Tsarist-era laws relating to homosexuality had been abolished, but medical consensus continued to see it as an "aberration" and throughout the 20s homosexual relations were repressed to some degree in Central Asia, where such relations were associated by the authorities with pedophilia and misogyny (as they were in Albania.) At any rate no prominent Bolshevik openly spoke about homosexuality, and when Trotsky wrote The Revolution Betrayed he criticized the decision to restrict abortions while ignoring the restrictions which were placed on homosexuality not long before.

See also: http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/lgbtseries1007.php

This was an early 50s emergency law implemented when the Soviet embassy was bombed. The age was set at 12 and only applied if the person carried out similar acts, not simply "conspiring." The 1977 penal code had the age for capital punishment set at 18.

There were emigration restrictions in the USSR as well. On this subject see: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2640592&postcount=45

It was a dictatorship of the proletariat. You'll have to specify what you mean by "democratic," do you mean in terms of elections? Criticism? workers' control? Etc. On the latter two see: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2596922&postcount=2

Probably the best account of the Soviet charges against Zinoviev, Bukharin, etc. is this 1945 work (see the "Book Three" section): https://web.archive.org/web/20120220121444/http://www.shunpiking.com/books/GC/

The Bolshevik view in abortion wasn't that it was an "evil," it was that abortion is a right.

[Ismail]

The Bolshevik view in abortion wasn't that it was an "evil," it was that abortion is a right.I linked to the 1920 decree that legalized abortions in my post. The relevant part reads, "During the last decade the number of women who terminate their pregnancy prematurely increased both with us and abroad. The legislation of all countries struggles against this evil by punishing both the woman who is guilty of abortion and the operating physician. This method of struggle has been ineffectual. Abortions were necessarily made in secret and the women very often became the victim of mercenary ignorant persons who traded in this secret operation. As a result, 50% of women fell ill of infections after abortions and 4% of them died. The workers’ and peasants’ Government realizing the dangers of such a situation has undertaken a campaign against secret abortions among working women. It foresees that this phenomenon will gradually disappear with the building of socialism."

The fact abortions were legalized doesn't change what the Bolsheviks ultimately thought about the practice. There was obvious continuity between those thoughts and the decision to restrict the practice in the 30s when socialism was proclaimed built in the main.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That is some of the most disgusting cult of personality glorifications i've ever had the dis-pleasure of reading.

[Ismail]

That is some of the most disgusting cult of personality glorifications i've ever had the dis-pleasure of reading.Erm... alright. I'm not quite sure what you're referencing.