A question about Communism

[Short&Direct]

Can someone tell me of countries that have Communist governments where the people aren't treated bad like North Korea or China. Also I feel like the government gets more power under Communism, they take all the food, land, and wealth to redistribute as they see fit. I feel like this is an easily corruptible government. Can someone shed some light on this for me?

[Q]

Moved this from /politics to /learning as this is a rather basic question.

You'll be hard pressed to find anyone defending North Korea or China as 'communist'. As a matter of fact, since the 2007 constitutional changes North Korea removed all references to 'socialism' whatsoever themselves.

The longer answer is multi-answerable and depends on who you ask here. My answer, being an orthodox Marxist, is that these 'workers states' are hardly that or ever were remotely that. Most of these countries are third world societies, where the proletariat was and is a minority of society. Socialism then, the transcending of capital, was never going to result from these projects themselve.

The 'template' of these states is of course the USSR and so it is important to ask what the USSR was. Again, this is hardly a question with a single answer. Again, my position is that the USSR knew a counterrevolution within the revolution early in its life. Revolution and counterrevolution always go hand in hand and it is a multitude of factors which decide the outcome. Suffice to say that in the USSR the counterrevolution consolidated its power by the 1930's and after the war became the leading template for the rest of the 'really existing socialist' world.

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

There actually are no "communist countries". And such a thing wouldn't really be possible, because communism is international. In communism, there also is no state, so there isn't anyone to take away things from you or tell you what to do.

Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society where everything is owned and controlled collectively by the workers, which are the entire population (hence classless). It doesn't happen overnight though.

Countries that have had communist revolutions in the past, such as the USSR and its allies, and China, NK, etc, have never achieved (or even claimed to achieve) communism, they were only trying to make progress towards it (or at least they said they were; some may disagree), as their ultimate goal. What they actually were is mainly a matter of opinion. You'll get answers ranging from "state capitalist" to "socialist" to "degenerated workers' state".

[Short&Direct]

So no 'countries' can ever be Communist. For it to be 'real' Communism the whole world would have to be in on it?

[Blake's Baby]

'... in on it'?

Communism is a post-capitalist social system. It can't exist until capitalism has been suppressed. While there are capitalist countries, the revolution hasn't finished.

So yeah, everywhere has to be 'in on it', because it's not possible to establish communism until capitalism has been surpassed, and it's not possible to surpass capitalism in one place.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Moved this from /politics to /learning as this is a rather basic question.

You'll be hard pressed to find anyone defending North Korea or China as 'communist'. As a matter of fact, since the 2007 constitutional changes North Korea removed all references to 'socialism' whatsoever themselves.

The longer answer is multi-answerable and depends on who you ask here. My answer, being an orthodox Marxist, is that these 'workers states' are hardly that or ever were remotely that. Most of these countries are third world societies, where the proletariat was and is a minority of society. Socialism then, the transcending of capital, was never going to result from these projects themselve.

The 'template' of these states is of course the USSR and so it is important to ask what the USSR was. Again, this is hardly a question with a single answer. Again, my position is that the USSR knew a counterrevolution within the revolution early in its life. Revolution and counterrevolution always go hand in hand and it is a multitude of factors which decide the outcome. Suffice to say that in the USSR the counterrevolution consolidated its power by the 1930's and after the war became the leading template for the rest of the 'really existing socialist' world.

How can you jump from saying that current states like North Korea and China were never going to be socialist because of their lack of an established working class, to saying that there was a revolution in the USSR (where the same lack of working class was true) and that, perversely, a counter-revolution occurred in the USSR precisely in the period when it actually had an established working class?

[BIXX]

Can someone tell me of countries that have Communist governments where the people aren't treated bad like North Korea or China. Also I feel like the government gets more power under Communism, they take all the food, land, and wealth to redistribute as they see fit. I feel like this is an easily corruptible government. Can someone shed some light on this for me?


There are no communist countries, for reasons already stated in this thread.

The government doesn't get more power under communism, as communism is a stateless and classless society. The community (which is everyone) decides what is to be done with production, etc...

[Blake's Baby]

How can you jump from saying that current states like North Korea and China were never going to be socialist because of their lack of an established working class, to saying that there was a revolution in the USSR (where the same lack of working class was true) and that, perversely, a counter-revolution occurred in the USSR precisely in the period when it actually had an established working class?

What lack of a working class? Russia had a massively concentrated working class in some of the biggest, newest and most advanced factories in the world before the revolution. It was the world's 5th biggest economy and had maybe 2 million urban industrial workers, as well as a large rural proletariat.

Sure it was a vast country with tens of millions of peasants in it. But that doesn't mean that the working class wasn't massive. What you're comparing is a very big thing with a very very big thing, not a negligible thing with a very big thing.

[reb]

Countries that have had communist revolutions in the past, such as the USSR and its allies, and China, NK, etc, have never achieved (or even claimed to achieve) communism, they were only trying to make progress towards it (or at least they said they were; some may disagree), as their ultimate goal. What they actually were is mainly a matter of opinion. You'll get answers ranging from "state capitalist" to "socialist" to "degenerated workers' state".

Or you could apply the Marxist understanding as to what communism to them to see how anti-communist they were/are:

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."

These places where in no way communist because they were not striving to abolish the present state of affairs and to talk about establishing communism or make a progress to it is idealist and utopian.

[reb]

So no 'countries' can ever be Communist. For it to be 'real' Communism the whole world would have to be in on it?

Communism happens because of capitalism. Capitalism is a world wide system and this means that communism too has to be a world wide system. This doesn't mean that the whole world has to all decide to be communist at once, that's stupid stalinist strawmanning, but capitalism will reach a point which is exacerbated by the communist movement to a point where it will no longer be able to function and collapse. This is part of the reason why Marx thought that only in the advanced countries of Europe and the Americas could communism break out and succeed.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, I'm going to be the one marching to my own beat in this thread, I guess . . .

I think there is significant precedent for stateless, classless societies, including in fact, the vast majority of societies for the vast majority of human history (even Karl called these communist, albeit prefaced with a certain Euro-liberal slur). Even now, while capitalism is undeniably global in one sense, it's not "uniform" - there exist many places where the effective sovereignty of states is quite limited, where capitalism reaps relatively limited profits, etc. - something to consider.

As to the OP, can you point to a capitalist state whose practices aren't every bit as horrid?

[Light of Lenin]

You'll be hard pressed to find anyone defending North Korea or China as 'communist'. As a matter of fact, since the 2007 constitutional changes North Korea removed all references to 'socialism' whatsoever themselves.

The White Power "Left" can't even keep their lies straight about the Constitution of the DPRK. The propaganda-claim of the White Power "Left" is that the DPRK "removed" all references to "communism" from their 1998 Constitution. All two of them. The word "communism" only appeared in Article 29 and Article 40.

The word socialist/socialism appears dozens of times though, in all versions. I counted 41 times in the 2009 version, which is nearly identical to the 2012 version.

[Short&Direct]

In Anarchist-Communism a dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a necessary step, which is why I like it. However in Marxism it is a necessary step to reach a classless society. My question is how can this ever work, if power corrupts?

[Q]

The White Power "Left" can't even keep their lies straight about the Constitution of the DPRK. The propaganda-claim of the White Power "Left" is that the DPRK "removed" all references to "communism" from their 1998 Constitution. All two of them. The word "communism" only appeared in Article 29 and Article 40.

The word socialist/socialism appears dozens of times though, in all versions. I counted 41 times in the 2009 version, which is nearly identical to the 2012 version.
1. I did not lie about anything, given that I did not state anything wrong intentionally.
2. I do NOT appreciate being referred to as 'white power leftist'. This is highly outragious.
3. Thank you for pointing out that they removed referrences to communism. It is a pity though that such an inhuman dynastic totalitarian dictatorship still refers to itself as 'socialist'.

[Light of Lenin]

1. I did not lie about anything, given that I did not state anything wrong intentionally.

Lying about the DPRK is just a habit of the White Power "Left." The White Power "Left" will regurgitate any and all lies coming from the imperialist media organs about the DPRK. White Power "Leftists" don't even bother considering whether imperialist propaganda is lies before they start spreading it around.


2. I do NOT appreciate being referred to as 'white power leftist'. This is highly outragious.I didn't say anything about you. I was making an observation about the nature of the White Power "Left." The White Power "Left" are the social-chauvinist opportunist servants of the imperialists. This is a type of White Nationalist that uses "Left" phraseology to specifically undermine any and all attempts at revolution.


3. Thank you for pointing out that they removed referrences to communism. It is a pity though that such an inhuman dynastic totalitarian dictatorship still refers to itself as 'socialist'.The White Power "Left" hates all the same enemies the Western imperialists hate, and apes their same phrases, all the while pretending to be revolutionaries instead of the White Nationalist Labor Aristocracy-wannabe servants of genocidal imperialists they are.

[Sinister Intents]

In Anarchist-Communism a dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a necessary step, which is why I like it. However in Marxism it is a necessary step to reach a classless society. My question is how can this ever work, if power corrupts?

I'm a self proclaimed Anarcho-Communist and I'm partial to the idea of the DotP. I do see that it can become corrupted and become a de facto 'dictatorship over the proletariat.' I reject the idea of the Vanguard Party (fuck that, it seems elitist to me and like it'd perpetuate the decay of the DotP) The DotP exists to suppress the bourgeois class and counterrevolution, and it will exist until the boureoisie is dissolved, and then society will become classless from there, and with that the state will wither away and die. My post could be a whole lot better, but I'm very busy, sorry if it's incomplete

[The Lizard King]

In Anarchist-Communism a dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a necessary step, which is why I like it. However in Marxism it is a necessary step to reach a classless society. My question is how can this ever work, if power corrupts?

From end to beginning:
1. You speak of 'power' as if it is an entity with magical powers... Power is not capable of corrupting people. (Political) Power is something that can be taken and used to your liking to force your will on others. So the false argument that 'power corrupts' is not a reason for which DotP's should inherently fail.

2. You seem to think of DotP's as governments where 1 man or woman or a small select group of people is/are the leader(s) and hold(s) all the power. This is merely an interpretation of the DotP. When Marx spoke of the DotP, he spoke of the class rule of the proletariat. When the proletariat becomes the ruling class in society, the society will have made the switch from a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie to a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Marx never spoke of how the DotP would be ruled. It could be anything, ranging form a radical democracy to a situation where a vanguard party leads society.

3. Thinking that you can just skip the DotP and reach a communist society right after a revolution simply because you call yourself an anarcho-communist is laughable.

[Blake's Baby]

What do you mean by the 'Vanguard Party' though SI?

What's the difference between a 'vanguard party' and an organisation of revolutionaries (such as, for example, the Anarchist Federation)?

[Sinister Intents]

What do you mean by the 'Vanguard Party' though SI?

What's the difference between a 'vanguard party' and an organisation of revolutionaries (such as, for example, the Anarchist Federation)?

I'm talking about Lenin's idea of the Vanguard party, perhaps I'm forgetting my Lenin though... So, a federation of revolutionaries would be fine with me, but the Vanguard mixed with the DotP comes across as completely wrong with me. It just seems like it would perpetuate the failure of the DotP if a failure would occur, and the vanguard would become the new bourgeois ruling class exploiting the producing class, and capitalism would be reinstated fully.

edit: The difference between Lenin's Vanguard and the a group like the Anarchist Federation would be how it's applied, right? Lenin's Vanguard would lead the proletarian state, and the Anarchist Federation would conduct itself similarly, but sans DotP

[Red Economist]

Can someone tell me of countries that have Communist governments where the people aren't treated bad like North Korea or China.

Non-Communists describe the USSR, north Korea and china as 'communist' because they are ruled by 'communist' parties. They described themselves as socialist.
I think if you talk to a Marxist-Leninist they made a distinction between "Soviet Republic" and "People's Republic" as stages of the development of socialism; hence the USSR as a 'soviet' republic was more 'highly' developed than the eastern European 'people's republic' and so the Soviet Union had a right to intervene and repress dissent if necessary.


Also I feel like the government gets more power under Communism, they take all the food, land, and wealth to redistribute as they see fit. I feel like this is an easily corruptible government. Can someone shed some light on this for me?

Within Liberal Ideology, there is a pronounced tendency to identify the loss of personal liberty in the USSR as "Totalitarianism". Fredrich Hayek argued in The Road to Serfdom (1944) that Economic Planning necessarily produced a Totalitarian system of government. The inverse, that free markets produce democratic, liberal societies is now widely accepted and is a major part of neo-liberal and libertarian thinking. This serves simultaneously as an argument against communists (who advocated the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' which had totalitarian results) and socialists (who believed in retaining 'liberal' democratic states whilst having economic planning).

To some extent, this is an illusion as the state cannot physically enforce it's rule everywhere all at once. At a theoretical level, It takes on the qualities of a 'god' in being all-knowing and all-powerful consciousness tyrannically ruling society. This often emphasizes the role of individual leaders as controlling 'everything' through the state.
The problem with this approach is that the power of the state is limited by the physical powers of the people who compose it. (So, in theory, if you break the law and no-one sees it,you "get away" with it- but this assumes you were only in trouble if you 'broke' the law which wasn't the case as I'll explain later). Equally, the concept of totalitarian is a top-down conception of political power, which drastically under-estimates the scope of popular participation in the process of repression. This helps liberals exclude totalitarianism to a 'few' crazy people rather than admitting, it was a mass phenomena which contradicts the idea that liberalism is the 'natural' order as the product of 'normal' people "human nature".

In reality, economic planning was largely adhoc and the idea of a single national plan was a patchwork of smaller plans, and (regrettably) the system of social repression was never entirely the result of state security agencies, but of people's active and willing participating in denouncing friends, family members, colleagues etc. If you didn't denounce people, you'd get denounced for being "too liberal". The opposite happened as well with some people getting denounced for denouncing too many people and therefore disrupting economic activity in their workplace. Really crazy and evil stuff... :crying:

The USSR had targets for the number of people that were arrested and local branches of the NKVD competed against one another to fulfill their targets and were 'rewarded' (by not being killed themselves) for over fulfilling their quotas. often this meant pulling people off the street or for committing minor offenses like not having the correct papers.

To what extent the accusation of Totalitarianism is true and solutions to it is THE question for Communists. So you will get LOADS of potential answers. It's best to read around this one and see what you think as this is the question that usually defines which 'faction' you belong to.

As an Example, Trotskyism is notorious for internal disagreement on this issue;


"degenerated workers state" (The USSR 'degenerating' from a workers state under Lenin to a bureaucratic one under Stalin) and "deformed worker's states" (The product of Soviet Occupations in the eastern Europe)
"State Capitalism" (The State in the USSR as a 'capitalist' exploiting the workers)
"Bureaucratic Collectivist" or "Managerial" state (In which the USSR was not and never had been a workers state, but represented a new exploiting class of totalitarian-bureaucratic rulers. This theory emphasised similiarities between Fascism and Communism and is very close to mainstream definitions of Totalitarianism).

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I'm talking about Lenin's idea of the Vanguard party, perhaps I'm forgetting my Lenin though... So, a federation of revolutionaries would be fine with me, but the Vanguard mixed with the DotP comes across as completely wrong with me. It just seems like it would perpetuate the failure of the DotP if a failure would occur, and the vanguard would become the new bourgeois ruling class exploiting the producing class, and capitalism would be reinstated fully.

edit: The difference between Lenin's Vanguard and the a group like the Anarchist Federation would be how it's applied, right? Lenin's Vanguard would lead the proletarian state, and the Anarchist Federation would conduct itself similarly, but sans DotP
A vanguard is still a part of the whole. In military terms, the vanguard is sent ahead of the core of army, springing traps and scouting out enemies, but it is still a part of the whole and could not operate without the support of the rest of the force. In terms of the proletariat, it is the most class concious layer, the proles aware of their position in capitalism and already fighting and organising against it. A vanguard party, it follows, is simply attempting to organise that class concious layer into its most effective format to prepare the 'bulk' of the proletariat, as it were, for revolution and eventually dismantle capitalism altogether.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Ugh. Flip side of the same coin, much?


From end to beginning:
You speak of 'power' as if it is an entity with magical powers... Power is not capable of corrupting people. (Political) Power is something that can be taken and used to your liking to force your will on others. So the false argument that 'power corrupts' is not a reason for which DotP's should inherently fail.

And yet, you fail to grapple with power in a way that is every bit as idealist - as though anything can be "used to your liking" rather than understanding things dialectically, with material power shaping those who would wield it as much as the opposite is true. Certainly, "power corrupts" is a simplification, but one no less odious (and in fact, maybe less so) than the implication that the various material apparatuses of power has no historical character, no role in shaping the subjectivity of those who view the world through its bloody lens.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm talking about Lenin's idea of the Vanguard party, perhaps I'm forgetting my Lenin though...

Right - 'vanguard' = 'something I think Lenin said'.

What do you mean by 'vanguard' is what I'm after, not what Lenin meant (alternatively, the answer to the question 'what do you think Lenin meant?' is equally valid).


...So, a federation of revolutionaries would be fine with me, but the Vanguard mixed with the DotP comes across as completely wrong with me...

So it's about how the revolutionary organisation is organised? It's OK if it's a federation (which means what in terms of party organisation - that the sections don't have to accept decisions made by the whole, or what?)



... It just seems like it would perpetuate the failure of the DotP if a failure would occur, and the vanguard would become the new bourgeois ruling class exploiting the producing class, and capitalism would be reinstated fully.

edit: The difference between Lenin's Vanguard and the a group like the Anarchist Federation would be how it's applied, right? Lenin's Vanguard would lead the proletarian state, and the Anarchist Federation would conduct itself similarly, but sans DotP

The Anarchist Federation would lead the state, but not during the DotP? I really don't get what you're saying here I'm afraid.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Right - 'vanguard' = 'something I think Lenin said'.

What do you mean by 'vanguard' is what I'm after, not what Lenin meant (alternatively, the answer to the question 'what do you think Lenin meant?' is equally valid).



So it's about how the revolutionary organisation is organised? It's OK if it's a federation (which means what in terms of party organisation - that the sections don't have to accept decisions made by the whole, or what?)




The Anarchist Federation would lead the state, but not during the DotP? I really don't get what you're saying here I'm afraid.

But he did state what he thinks of lenin's idea of a vanguard party.He rejects it.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

From end to beginning:
1. You speak of 'power' as if it is an entity with magical powers... Power is not capable of corrupting people. (Political) Power is something that can be taken and used to your liking to force your will on others. So the false argument that 'power corrupts' is not a reason for which DotP's should inherently fail.

2. You seem to think of DotP's as governments where 1 man or woman or a small select group of people is/are the leader(s) and hold(s) all the power. This is merely an interpretation of the DotP. When Marx spoke of the DotP, he spoke of the class rule of the proletariat. When the proletariat becomes the ruling class in society, the society will have made the switch from a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie to a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Marx never spoke of how the DotP would be ruled. It could be anything, ranging form a radical democracy to a situation where a vanguard party leads society.

3. Thinking that you can just skip the DotP and reach a communist society right after a revolution simply because you call yourself an anarcho-communist is laughable.

Anarcho-Communism involves the DotP in Marx's sense, where all members of the working class are the embodiment of the state attempting to invert social and political relations.

[The Lizard King]

Ugh. Flip side of the same coin, much?



And yet, you fail to grapple with power in a way that is every bit as idealist - as though anything can be "used to your liking" rather than understanding things dialectically, with material power shaping those who would wield it as much as the opposite is true. Certainly, "power corrupts" is a simplification, but one no less odious (and in fact, maybe less so) than the implication that the various material apparatuses of power has no historical character, no role in shaping the subjectivity of those who view the world through its bloody lens.

I largely agree. I didn't mean to imply that as soon one holds political power, they can shape society to their liking. As soon as a group comes to power one way or another, it will never hold total power over society and a multitude of obstacles will have to be overcome. Of course, even the ones 'in power' of society are subjugated to the material conditions, ranging from the country's climate to neighboring nations to the culture and economy. I merely attempted to refute the false argument that power corrupts. But I should have been more humble in my explanation.

[The Lizard King]

Anarcho-Communism involves the DotP in Marx's sense, where all members of the working class are the embodiment of the state attempting to invert social and political relations.

I'm aware of that. Though many anarcho-communists seem to forget that all too often.

[Blake's Baby]

But he did state what he thinks of lenin's idea of a vanguard party.He rejects it.

My problem with the model of the 'vanguard party' proposed is that it's substitutionist, not that it's centralised. It's the actions of the party not its organisation that are the problem.

Sinister Intents then goes on to say that a 'vanguard' in the sense defined as 'Leninist' is not a problem outside of a situation of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Again, I disagree. An organisation of revolutionaries that exists for the purpose of seizing state power is a problem, whatever the period and however it is organised, in my view.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

My problem with the model of the 'vanguard party' proposed is that it's substitutionist, not that it's centralised. It's the actions of the party not its organisation that are the problem.

Sinister Intents then goes on to say that a 'vanguard' in the sense defined as 'Leninist' is not a problem outside of a situation of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Again, I disagree. An organisation of revolutionaries that exists for the purpose of seizing state power is a problem, whatever the period and however it is organised, in my view.

I aggree with you.I have one small question though.So if a party doesn't want a coup(seizing state power)but a revolution(communism) but is it very centralized as cps tend to be do you think that is a problem?You might think I am just ignoring your last sentence but can you say what you think on a highly centralized party?Also what do you mean by "the period"?

[Blake's Baby]

No, I don't see a problem with a centralised party. I think there's less of a problem with a centralised party than with a federal party. The federally-organised 2nd International went over to the bourgeoisie in 1914, for the most part. It's not defence against backsliding and opportunism.

By 'whatever the period' I meant that substitutionist parties are a problem whether there's a revolutionary situation or not. The problem is that they deny agency to the working class and actually work against working-class self-organisation. That's as much of a problem - maybe even more of a problem - at a time when the working class isn't cjallenging capitalism and the state head-on.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What lack of a working class? Russia had a massively concentrated working class in some of the biggest, newest and most advanced factories in the world before the revolution. It was the world's 5th biggest economy and had maybe 2 million urban industrial workers, as well as a large rural proletariat.

Sure it was a vast country with tens of millions of peasants in it. But that doesn't mean that the working class wasn't massive. What you're comparing is a very big thing with a very very big thing, not a negligible thing with a very big thing.

That's playing with the numbers. The reality is that, though the Russian working class had shown some impressive militancy since the turn of the 20th century, as you say it was still tiny compared to the total population of Russia.

That is where many of the 'excesses' of the Stalin era emanate from - a working class in its infancy and outnumbered by the peasantry, attempting to assert its own class interests over a wider Russian populace that had still not become working class and had opposing class interests to the workers in Petrograd etc.

[Blake's Baby]

That's playing with the numbers. The reality is that, though the Russian working class had shown some impressive militancy since the turn of the 20th century, as you say it was still tiny compared to the total population of Russia.

That is where many of the 'excesses' of the Stalin era emanate from - a working class in its infancy and outnumbered by the peasantry, attempting to assert its own class interests over a wider Russian populace that had still not become working class and had opposing class interests to the workers in Petrograd etc.

So what? The working class in Britain was tiny compared to the population of the British Empire. Doesn't mean that a revolution in Britain wouldn't have triggered a worldwide wave of struggle. Also, the ratio of workers to peasants in any territory only has meaning if you think that that territory could acheive socialism in one country. I don't. Capitalism is international, so it's the international balance of class forces that's important not the balance in this or that territory, and every revolutionary in the early 20th from Luxemburg to Trotsky to Kropotkin to the SPGB thought that the proletariat internationally was ready to overthrow capitalism.

[synthesis]

So what? The working class in Britain was tiny compared to the population of the British Empire. Doesn't mean that a revolution in Britain wouldn't have triggered a worldwide wave of struggle. Also, the ratio of workers to peasants in any territory only has meaning if you think that that territory could acheive socialism in one country. I don't. Capitalism is international, so it's the international balance of class forces that's important not the balance in this or that territory,

What about the ratio of workers to peasants globally? You don't think that makes a difference?

[Blake's Baby]

As you quoted that I said 'the international balance of class forces that's important', I'm not sure why you are asking the question. Perhaps you could explain why 'the ratio of workers to peasants globally' isn't part of 'the international balance of class forces'.

[synthesis]

Well, the workers of each territory have to overthrow their specific government, right? So doesn't it matter, practically speaking, what the class composition is of each particular territory, given that for at least a certain period of time, this is the territory that the worker's revolts will have to administer?

[Blake's Baby]

Only if every country exists in its own bubble and has no connection with any other. Which it doesn't. Yes, the Russian working class had to administer a state that had a majority of peasants. What it didn't have to do was create a socialist society in such circumstances.

I'm not sure there are so many countries these days where peasants massively outnumber workers anyway though.

[synthesis]

Only if every country exists in its own bubble and has no connection with any other. Which it doesn't. Yes, the Russian working class had to administer a state that had a majority of peasants. What it didn't have to do was create a socialist society in such circumstances.

I'm not sure there are so many countries these days where peasants massively outnumber workers anyway though.

No, there aren't any. I'm just talking about historical analysis, not about the issue of whether the world is "ready for socialism" today. I just find that the view that everything that went wrong with the Soviet Union was rooted in a lack of internationalism to be sort of reductionist - and yeah, I know that's a reductive perspective on your own views, but I'm sort of exaggerating to make a point. I think it's a good response to people advocating the possibility of "socialism in one country," but if you already accept the necessity of internationalism, it seems like dogmatism to reject the possibility that the state of productive forces (i.e., the state of industrialization) in Russia, and its class composition thereof, had something to do with the success, or lack thereof, of a proletarian dictatorship there. I think that there is a strong correlation between the nature of productive forces in any given area and the tendency of communists in those areas - mostly Maoists today - to take on what I'd call "pseudo-internationalism"; that is, they might be internationalist in their rhetoric, but not in their praxis, because ultimately they find themselves trying to wipe away any remaining traces of a pre-capitalist mode of production there rather than building their area's working class into a broader paradigm of internationalism.

[Blake's Baby]

No, there aren't any. I'm just talking about historical analysis, not about the issue of whether the world is "ready for socialism" today. I just find that the view that everything that went wrong with the Soviet Union was rooted in a lack of internationalism to be sort of reductionist - and yeah, I know that's a reductive perspective on your own views, but I'm sort of exaggerating to make a point...

Well, in some ways I think it would be a reasonable point to make, because I think that whatever the conditions in Russia, they weren't as important as the conditions outside of Russia. They weren't completely unimportnat, but as i've said many times before, the problems of the revolution in Russia shaped the failure of the revolution there, they didn't cause that failure.

The world revolution didn't die in Petrograd, it died in Berlin. In that sense, your redcutionism is spot on - I think what you're doing is trying to cut to the essentials of my argument and I really have no objection to that.

But it's not a 'lack of internationalism' that was the problem. So your attempt I'm afraid misses its target. When it came to it, the Germa state was able to use Social Democracy to butcher the revolution: the German state and its SPD puppet-masters and proto-Fascist butcher-boys in the Freikorps proved to be stronger and more organised than the communists, and the German working class chose to sign its own death-warrant and support the organisations and personel that had betraye it (and the proletariat internationally) in 1914. That wasn't the fault of Lenin, Trotsky, or the Russian working class.


... I think it's a good response to people advocating the possibility of "socialism in one country," but if you already accept the necessity of internationalism, it seems like dogmatism to reject the possibility that the state of productive forces (i.e., the state of industrialization) in Russia, and its class composition thereof, had something to do with the success, or lack thereof, of a proletarian dictatorship there...

Which I don't. Of course, conditions in Russia to a great extent determined the situation in Russia. But so did external conditions - the development of Russian capitalism by German and French industrialists; the war and the state of international diplomacy; even socialist political theory: all of these impacted on the situation in Russia and were born or incubated outside of it.


... I think that there is a strong correlation between the nature of productive forces in any given area and the tendency of communists in those areas - mostly Maoists today - to take on what I'd call "pseudo-internationalism"; that is, they might be internationalist in their rhetoric, but not in their praxis, because ultimately they find themselves trying to wipe away any remaining traces of a pre-capitalist mode of production there rather than building their area's working class into a broader paradigm of internationalism.

Maybe. But I confiently expect such idiocy will swept away when the working class begins to assert itself.

[synthesis]

But it's not a 'lack of internationalism' that was the problem. So your attempt I'm afraid misses its target. When it came to it, the Germa state was able to use Social Democracy to butcher the revolution: the German state and its SPD puppet-masters and proto-Fascist butcher-boys in the Freikorps proved to be stronger and more organised than the communists, and the German working class chose to sign its own death-warrant and support the organisations and personel that had betraye it (and the proletariat internationally) in 1914. That wasn't the fault of Lenin, Trotsky, or the Russian working class.

Yeah, I knew that my characterization of your perspective was making it out to be rooted in idealism, like it failed because people didn't "believe in internationalism enough." I know that's not what you think, and not what anyone else I know of thinks. It still seems like a reading of history that's been shaped by an emphasis on internationalism, but I'm not informed enough to have that argument, not now at least.

So what would be your objection to this characterization of what happened: there was a global proletarian revolution, it failed, and on the back of the disarray from that failure the Bolsheviks took power as a bourgeois revolution due to the specific circumstances of Russia's relations, mode and forces of production. Not just a "revolution with a dual character" - the global revolution was defeated, and so in the specific circumstances of Russia the revolution became a bourgeois revolution against the aristocracy, the monarchy, and the feudal paradigm, or at least what remained of it. I mean, I don't see how anyone could argue that the Bolshevik elite itself was "the most advanced section of the working class" - they were professional revolutionaries, many from petit-bourgeois or peasant backgrounds. The fact that they had support from the Soviets, which were indeed genuinely proletarian institutions, doesn't seem to change that. I don't see what, in practice, differentiates Lenin circa 1920 from Fidel Castro circa 1963.

[Blake's Baby]

...
So what would be your objection to this characterization of what happened: there was a global proletarian revolution, it failed, and on the back of the disarray from that failure the Bolsheviks took power as a bourgeois revolution due to the specific circumstances of Russia's relations, mode and forces of production. Not just a "revolution with a dual character" - the global revolution was defeated, and so in the specific circumstances of Russia the revolution became a bourgeois revolution against the aristocracy, the monarchy, and the feudal paradigm, or at least what remained of it....

I don't think the Bolsheviks took power 'on the back of disarray' resulting from the failure of the world revolution. I think the Bolsheviks took power before the world revolution failed.

I don't buy the 'revolution against the aristocracy'. Britain still has a monarchy, an aristocracy, it only abolished the hereditary peerage's right to sit in the upper house a few years ago, the upper house is unelected, there is a state religion; if you want a country where the 'liberal revolution' is unfinished, then Britain is a prime candidate.

However, the narrative of the 'unfinished tasks of the bourgeoisie' is just wrong. Britain doesn't need to finish the tasks of the bourgeois revolution now, and Russia didn't need to finish them a century ago.

The reason marx thought the Russian peasant communes might be able to develop into a socialist formation was because he considered it possible that, if the revolution happened in Europe in the 1880s, the communes could be integrated into an expanding world revolution. They didn't need to become capitalist and then socialist as the world development of the revolution would be enough. Even at the end of the the 19th century Marx and Engels were realising that there were no 'national' tasks left.


...I mean, I don't see how anyone could argue that the Bolshevik elite itself was "the most advanced section of the working class" - they were professional revolutionaries, many from petit-bourgeois or peasant backgrounds. The fact that they had support from the Soviets, which were indeed genuinely proletarian institutions, doesn't seem to change that. I don't see what, in practice, differentiates Lenin circa 1920 from Fidel Castro circa 1963.

Stand by. The Bolsheviks were in 1917 among the best representatives of the proletariat. Almost all of the organisations of social democracy had betrayed the working class. The Bolsheviks, the Serbian Socialist Party and the SPGB were among only a tiny number of ostensibly Marxist organisations to oppose the war.

I don't think their background is that important. To argue you can't be a communist if your father is a district school inspector (or whatever) is to replace class analysis with class prejudice. Engels was bourgeois - not petit-bourgeois, but haut-bourgeois. Kropotkin and Bakunin were aristocrats. So what? It's the extent to which they act in the interests of the working class, the extent to which the organisations put forward the interests of the working class (and the Bolsheviks were during WWI firm internationalists) that counts, not what social background this or that member had. workers, after all, can hold reactionary political views as individuals. Members of other social strata can hold revolutionary views.

I'm not aware that Castro called for all power to the workers' councils. I'm not aware that there really were any councils in Cuba in 1956 when Castro's 26th July Movement returned from exile to launch their guerilla war.

I know you said 1920 and 1963. By 1920 and 1963 there were more similarities, but I think again you'ere falling into the trap of seeing things from a national perspective. What was the difference between Lenin in 1920 and Castro in 1963? In 1920 Lenin was presiding over a regime that still had some proletarian content, in the middle of a world revolutionary wave; in 1963 Castro was presiding over a regime that was at best a proxy for Russian imperialism in the midst of a period of deepest counter-revolution. They're pretty fundamental differences.

[synthesis]

I don't think the Bolsheviks took power 'on the back of disarray' resulting from the failure of the world revolution. I think the Bolsheviks took power before the world revolution failed.

I don't mean that they cynically exploited the world revolution to obtain power. I meant that they came to power in the milieu of the world revolution, and as that milieu dissipated, their class character changed substantially.


I don't buy the 'revolution against the aristocracy'. Britain still has a monarchy, an aristocracy, it only abolished the hereditary peerage's right to sit in the upper house a few years ago, the upper house is unelected, there is a state religion; if you want a country where the 'liberal revolution' is unfinished, then Britain is a prime candidate.

These are like the paleontological remnants of the feudal mode of production, which was still actually prevalent, and more importantly politically and economically influential, in the territory that the Bolsheviks presided over.

And I don't mean to put words in the following poster's mouth - I suspect he would disagree with me here - but this quote of his from the Tony Benn thread came to mind when I read your post:


this is the thing, for all the claims that benn was a "socialist" - here and elsewhere, and from people who should know better - his primary political concern was always political and civil rights. parliamentary reform, republicanism, electoral reform, suffrage, etc. he was explicit about this. his "socialism" was little more than the nationalisation of key industries with workers' control, and again, he was explicit about not seeing socialism as an end goal, as "socialist society" (which he regarded as "theological" - rich for a christian "socialist"!), but as reforms. so the nhs was an example of socialism in action for benn, for example, and his vision didn't extend much beyond that.

but yeah, the spgb description of benn as a "radical liberal still fighting the battles of the 1860s" (or whatever the exact quote was) is just that: pungently bourgeois. benn wanted to finish the bourgeois revolution: wipe away the house of lords, do away with the monarchy, etc. etc.


However, the narrative of the 'unfinished tasks of the bourgeoisie' is just wrong. Britain doesn't need to finish the tasks of the bourgeois revolution now, and Russia didn't need to finish them a century ago.

I don't think it's about "needing" to finish anything in order to get to socialism. All I want is to look at the early Soviet Union from a historical materialist perspective, not to justify any sort of procrastinationism. (I just made that word up; hopefully the meaning comes across.)


Stand by. The Bolsheviks were in 1917 among the best representatives of the proletariat. Almost all of the organisations of social democracy had betrayed the working class. The Bolsheviks, the Serbian Socialist Party and the SPGB were among only a tiny number of ostensibly Marxist organisations to oppose the war.

I don't think their background is that important. To argue you can't be a communist if your father is a district school inspector (or whatever) is to replace class analysis with class prejudice. Engels was bourgeois - not petit-bourgeois, but haut-bourgeois. Kropotkin and Bakunin were aristocrats. So what? It's the extent to which they act in the interests of the working class, the extent to which the organisations put forward the interests of the working class (and the Bolsheviks were during WWI firm internationalists) that counts, not what social background this or that member had. workers, after all, can hold reactionary political views as individuals. Members of other social strata can hold revolutionary views.

All this seems to say that it doesn't actually matter, in practice, whether it is the working class itself that is in power. Marx, Engels and Bakunin were theorists, not the highest echelons of a state that held real power. Kropotkin is probably the evidence here that I find most convincing, but that's partially just because I don't feel that I know enough about Kronstadt to debate the subject properly.


I'm not aware that Castro called for all power to the workers' councils. I'm not aware that there really were any councils in Cuba in 1956 when Castro's 26th July Movement returned from exile to launch their guerilla war.

I know you said 1920 and 1963. By 1920 and 1963 there were more similarities, but I think again you'ere falling into the trap of seeing things from a national perspective. What was the difference between Lenin in 1920 and Castro in 1963? In 1920 Lenin was presiding over a regime that still had some proletarian content, in the middle of a world revolutionary wave; in 1963 Castro was presiding over a regime that was at best a proxy for Russian imperialism in the midst of a period of deepest counter-revolution. They're pretty fundamental differences.

The idea was just that they both had proletarian support. I agree that it is global conditions that ultimately determine the nature of any particular expression of proletarian revolution. It just seems to me that you don't want to take the left-communist analysis of post-Lenin regimes as bourgeois to its logical conclusion, that after the world revolution failed Lenin became no different from any other dictator that left-communists have condemned as bourgeois, and it seems to me that this is owing to the political baggage of left-communism when considered as a historical thread tracing back to the origins of the tendency.

[Blake's Baby]

Lenin was dead by the time the world revolutionary wave was over.

But if you want me to say that the regime that he and Trotsky presided over was a vehicle for the counter-revolution, then certainly. Starting with the creation of the council of people's commissars, the Bolsheviks put in place a series of policies that acted counter to the interests of the proletariat. For a time there were two competing dynamics - a revolutionary dynamic and a reactionary dynamic. In 1917 the revolutionary dynamic was stronger. By the early 1920s the reactionary dynamic was stronger. By the late '20s the reactionary dynamic was triumphant an the revolutionary wave was over. My take on it is that the massacre of the Shanghai Commune in 1927 marks the definitive end of the world revolutionary wave, but in Russia there were terrible things done long before this. One cannot ignore Kronstadt for one. But I don't see all being lost even as late as 1924. In 'historical' terms, yes - there was no rescue of Russia from outside. But in 1924 was it clear all had been lost? I don't think so.

[synthesis]

But didn't Lenin say that the NEP resulted in part from his perception that the world revolution had failed? I'm trying to find a source for this besides "The New Economic Policy and the Tasks of the Political Education Departments" from 1921, which seems to be his major theoretical justification for the NEP, but even if he doesn't say that directly, I think it's telling that he talks almost entirely of the need for the NEP to protect socialism in Russia, i.e., socialism in one country, with no mention whatsoever of the world revolution except, I'd argue, acknowledging the failure of such as the reason for "a war waged by a government against the bourgeoisie of its own country and against the united bourgeoisie of all countries."

Right before that, of course, he says:


The dictatorship of the proletariat is fierce war. The proletariat has been victorious in one country, but it is still weak internationally. It must unite all the workers and peasants around itself in the knowledge that the war is not over. Although in our anthem we sing: “The last fight let us face", unfortunately it is not quite true; it is not our last fight. Either you succeed in uniting the workers and peasants in this fight, or you fail to achieve victory.

But that's the only reference to internationalism in the piece that I can see, and again it seems to be in implicit defense of "allowance for the role of state capitalism in building socialism in a peasant country."

edit: I came across a couple more quotes from Lenin I'd like to throw into the broader discussion for flavor, with links so the source context can be examined if you or whoever wants to.


Let us recall the main stages of our revolution. The first stage: the purely political stage, so to speak, from October 25 to January 5, when the Constituent Assembly was dissolved. ... Was the revolution a bourgeois revolution at that time? Of course it was, insofar as our function was to complete the bourgeois democratic revolution, insofar as there was as yet no class struggle among the “peasantry”. But, at the same time, we accomplished a great deal over and above the bourgeois revolution for the socialist, proletarian revolution: 1) we developed the forces of the working class for its utilisation of state power to an extent never achieved before; 2) we struck a blow that was felt all over the world against the fetishes of petty-bourgeois democracy, the Constituent Assembly and bourgeois “liberties” such as freedom of the press for the rich; 5) we created the Soviet type of state, which was a gigantic step in advance of 1795 and 1871. (here) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/aug/20.htm)


When, three years ago, we raised the question of the tasks and the conditions of the proletarian revolution’s victory in Russia, we always stated emphatically that victory could not be permanent unless it was followed up by a proletarian revolution in the West, and that a correct appraisal of our revolution was possible only from the international point of view. For victory to be lasting, we must achieve the victory of the proletarian revolution in all, or at any rate in several, of the main capitalist countries. After three years of desperate and stubborn struggle, we can see in what respect our predictions have or have not materialised. (here) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/nov/21.htm)

By 1923:


What if the complete hopelessness of the situation, by stimulating the efforts of the workers and peasants tenfold, offered us the opportunity to create the fundamental requisites of civilization in a different way from that of the West European countries? Has that altered the general line of development of world history? Has that altered the basic relations between the basic classes of all the countries that are being, or have been, drawn into the general course of world history?

If a definite level of culture is required for the building of socialism (although nobody can say just what that definite "level of culture" is, for it differs in every Western European country), why cannot we began by first achieving the prerequisites for that definite level of culture in a revolutionary way, and then, with the aid of the workers' and peasants' government and Soviet system, proceed to overtake the other nations? (here) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm)

[Blake's Baby]

Not sure why I haven't come back to this... but here goes.

I don't read the excerpt from 'The NEP (etc)' as being a justification for state capitalism 'building socialism in a peasant country'. Lenin may say that the proletariat has been 'victorious' but to claim that he means ultimately victorious (ie, that victory in one country is sufficient for the construction of socialism (in one country?)) is an error. I think rather that he means that the proletariat has completed (is victorious in) the political revolution (the revolution that, according to Marx, is 'national' in form if not in content), but not the social revolution (that is, the transformation of capitalist society into communist society). The capitalist class was defeated in Russia; but the construction of socialist society was not possible because it is not possible to construct socialist society in one country. This is why for Lenin (in 1921!) there is the mention of the failure of the working class internationally.

But, his use 'socialism' (as a synonym for either the DotP or the lower phase of communism) is problematic here.

Even in 1923 when I agree Lenin had adopted a much more 'defencist' attitude (for want of a better term) he's talking about building the pre-requisites of socialism, rather than socialism itself, and he seems to mean using state power to stimulate production (perhaps he's implying that production should be targeted to stimulating cultural life among the population, eg through decreasing working hours etc and giving workers more time and opportunity for social, educational and cultural pursuits).