redstar2000
26th February 2004, 08:54
What are the obligations of communist societies to pre-capitalist societies?
Consider a world in which the European Union and North America have both established functioning communist societies. (We might also include Japan, eastern China, Taiwan, united Korea, Australia, New Zealand and possibly Malaysia, Singapore, and South Africa.)
This world would still contain some functioning and even thriving capitalist countries, Russia, Brazil, and Mexico being the most likely. But there would be a large number of countries that were either still pre-capitalist or in the very early stages of capitalism -- call it "robber baron" capitalism.
With the end of the old neo-colonial powers, the new ones would struggle with each other over who could establish new neo-colonial relationships with the "third world".
Meanwhile, what should we do?
We will not have the massive professional military forces to actively intervene in other parts of the world...even if we might think it desirable to do so. We might be able to "tip the balance" in a country "close at hand"...helping Cuba to resist a Mexican invasion, for example. But if Brazil decides to conquer Paraguay or Russia decides to rebuild her old empire...there's not a lot we can do about that.
Communist societies will almost certainly re-establish the manufacturing sectors that the old capitalist regimes exported to the "third world"...so the physical plants, etc. can be turned over to those countries "gratis". We could even give them directly to the workers in those countries...though they would probably not be allowed to keep them.
It is possible that we may have to arrange some kind of barter agreement with the pre-capitalist or early capitalist regimes; a communist EU might trade food for oil or natural gas with Russia or Libya.
We would, of course, try to support communist movements in those countries that had not yet had successful proletarian revolutions...especially in the most advanced capitalist countries of that era. But it would be necessary to recognize our limitations. Having no currency ourselves, we can't send any to anyone else (we could send, for example, the jewelry we had seized from our own ex-capitalists and let domestic communists convert it into the local currency). We could print vast quantities of literature for them and hope to smuggle as much as possible into those countries. We could offer well-meaning advice...and hope at least some of it was useful. And we could provide refuge for prominent communists from those countries who had no choice but exile or execution.
Naturally, we'd have websites in every language about communism and we'd shift them around as they were blocked by repressive regimes (satellite technology might prove useful here).
Is there anything else? Should we provide humanitarian assistance to non-communist regimes that starve their populations or that suffer natural disasters? I can't see much use in that myself -- most of the assistance will inevitably be stolen by the ruling elites in those countries.
Thus, for the most part and in all substantive ways, I think the first communist societies would have little choice but to "mind their own business" and wait for the rest of the planet to "catch up".
I address this question because there is another view -- that seems to be held by the "Revolutionary Communist" Party but probably also by others.
In the RCP's opinion, at least as I understand it, the purpose of their "dictatorship of (over) the proletariat" is to deliberately hold back the transition to communism in the advanced capitalist countries until the entire world is materially capable of making that transition.
An RCP-style regime in the EU or North America would thus continue to exploit the working class, keeping it in wage-slavery. The extracted surplus value would be appropriated by the ruling elite and dispersed as developmental assistance to "friendly" regimes in the "third world". It would probably be called "reparations for imperialism" or something along those lines.
No one knows how long it would take to raise the "third world" to the level where communism would be materially possible...but a couple of centuries would seem a reasonable estimate. During this period, an "iron dictatorship" would be required in the advanced countries over workers who made a revolution to emancipate themselves from wage-slavery...only to learn that wage-slavery would continue "even unto the 7th generation".
And those "friendly regimes" that will receive the assistance might well have required considerable military assistance if not outright invasion and conquest by the RCP regime in North America...thus the continuation of a bloated parasitical military establishment will be required. Military conscription of young workers will be necessary -- the sons of the ruling elite will be excused.
Under such circumstances, revolutionary class consciousness will plummit...people will quickly learn that despite all the red flags, it's just a new version of "dog eat dog". Corruption is inevitable! And long before the two centuries have passed, or even half that, the ruling party will have transformed itself into a new capitalist and imperialist ruling class.
Realistically, I don't think the RCP perspective "has a prayer"...no class conscious worker is ever going to say "ok, I'm willing to remain a wage-slave until Nepal has reached the material level required for communism."
But the purpose of discussions like this one is to keep people from wasting their time and energy on something they really don't want! The reason I argue against "bad ideas" on the "left" is not because I think the bad ideas really have much chance of success...but rather to encourage people who really want communism to hold out for that and "accept no substitutes".
It is better to fight for what you want and maybe lose than to fight for what you don't want...and also lose.
:redstar2000:
The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
Consider a world in which the European Union and North America have both established functioning communist societies. (We might also include Japan, eastern China, Taiwan, united Korea, Australia, New Zealand and possibly Malaysia, Singapore, and South Africa.)
This world would still contain some functioning and even thriving capitalist countries, Russia, Brazil, and Mexico being the most likely. But there would be a large number of countries that were either still pre-capitalist or in the very early stages of capitalism -- call it "robber baron" capitalism.
With the end of the old neo-colonial powers, the new ones would struggle with each other over who could establish new neo-colonial relationships with the "third world".
Meanwhile, what should we do?
We will not have the massive professional military forces to actively intervene in other parts of the world...even if we might think it desirable to do so. We might be able to "tip the balance" in a country "close at hand"...helping Cuba to resist a Mexican invasion, for example. But if Brazil decides to conquer Paraguay or Russia decides to rebuild her old empire...there's not a lot we can do about that.
Communist societies will almost certainly re-establish the manufacturing sectors that the old capitalist regimes exported to the "third world"...so the physical plants, etc. can be turned over to those countries "gratis". We could even give them directly to the workers in those countries...though they would probably not be allowed to keep them.
It is possible that we may have to arrange some kind of barter agreement with the pre-capitalist or early capitalist regimes; a communist EU might trade food for oil or natural gas with Russia or Libya.
We would, of course, try to support communist movements in those countries that had not yet had successful proletarian revolutions...especially in the most advanced capitalist countries of that era. But it would be necessary to recognize our limitations. Having no currency ourselves, we can't send any to anyone else (we could send, for example, the jewelry we had seized from our own ex-capitalists and let domestic communists convert it into the local currency). We could print vast quantities of literature for them and hope to smuggle as much as possible into those countries. We could offer well-meaning advice...and hope at least some of it was useful. And we could provide refuge for prominent communists from those countries who had no choice but exile or execution.
Naturally, we'd have websites in every language about communism and we'd shift them around as they were blocked by repressive regimes (satellite technology might prove useful here).
Is there anything else? Should we provide humanitarian assistance to non-communist regimes that starve their populations or that suffer natural disasters? I can't see much use in that myself -- most of the assistance will inevitably be stolen by the ruling elites in those countries.
Thus, for the most part and in all substantive ways, I think the first communist societies would have little choice but to "mind their own business" and wait for the rest of the planet to "catch up".
I address this question because there is another view -- that seems to be held by the "Revolutionary Communist" Party but probably also by others.
In the RCP's opinion, at least as I understand it, the purpose of their "dictatorship of (over) the proletariat" is to deliberately hold back the transition to communism in the advanced capitalist countries until the entire world is materially capable of making that transition.
An RCP-style regime in the EU or North America would thus continue to exploit the working class, keeping it in wage-slavery. The extracted surplus value would be appropriated by the ruling elite and dispersed as developmental assistance to "friendly" regimes in the "third world". It would probably be called "reparations for imperialism" or something along those lines.
No one knows how long it would take to raise the "third world" to the level where communism would be materially possible...but a couple of centuries would seem a reasonable estimate. During this period, an "iron dictatorship" would be required in the advanced countries over workers who made a revolution to emancipate themselves from wage-slavery...only to learn that wage-slavery would continue "even unto the 7th generation".
And those "friendly regimes" that will receive the assistance might well have required considerable military assistance if not outright invasion and conquest by the RCP regime in North America...thus the continuation of a bloated parasitical military establishment will be required. Military conscription of young workers will be necessary -- the sons of the ruling elite will be excused.
Under such circumstances, revolutionary class consciousness will plummit...people will quickly learn that despite all the red flags, it's just a new version of "dog eat dog". Corruption is inevitable! And long before the two centuries have passed, or even half that, the ruling party will have transformed itself into a new capitalist and imperialist ruling class.
Realistically, I don't think the RCP perspective "has a prayer"...no class conscious worker is ever going to say "ok, I'm willing to remain a wage-slave until Nepal has reached the material level required for communism."
But the purpose of discussions like this one is to keep people from wasting their time and energy on something they really don't want! The reason I argue against "bad ideas" on the "left" is not because I think the bad ideas really have much chance of success...but rather to encourage people who really want communism to hold out for that and "accept no substitutes".
It is better to fight for what you want and maybe lose than to fight for what you don't want...and also lose.
:redstar2000:
The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas