Corruption of the Socialist state

[Salvador Allende]

We are met with a horrible tendancy. Socialism in it's pure form has never lasted past the second president without being corrupted by capitalist tendancys. the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was corrupted by Georgi Malenkov and Nikita Kruschov after Stalin died. China was corrupted by Xiaoping after Mao died and so on. It seems that there must be some way to get rid of the capitalist tendancys before they form a counter-revolution. I believe that Kampuchea would have succeeded in remaining Socialist after Pol Pot died if they had not been invaded by Vietnam. Unfortunately that is because Pol Pot went "1984" style and got children to turn in their family for supporting the old government and stuff. Do you all have any ideas as to how to remain Socialist?

[M_Rawlins]

Socialism was corrupted before Georgi Malenkov and Nikita Kruschev, just look what Stalin did. The idea of Stalin being a "president" is rather absurd... he was more like a "dictator". I reccomend reading "From Lenin To Stalin" by Victor Serge.

The Crimes of Stalin (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5200)

In this case of Russia, many argue that the Marxist-Leninist system was the begetter of Stalinism. Regarding the USSR, to a large extent socialism was never in it's pure form, even in the days of Lenin (e.g. the policies of the NEP - the re-introduction of limited capitalism in order to improve the economy).

[The Feral Underclass]

The problem is the state. In order for the state to exist it has to have leaders who control poweful insitutions to keep it in place. You can not achieve a classless state by using the state. In order for the state to exist it must become like the bourgeois state. It must centralize power into the hands of a ruling elite who must control everything in order to survive.

Russia and China failed because of this reason. The state did what a state did and removed power from the workers more and more as it existed longer and longer. The solution is to smash the state from the beginning, and hand over power to the workers from the beginning. The state corrupts and the state creates opression and ultimatly revision. It's like the HIV virus. Once you start it, you just can't stop it.

[James]

Well i suppose if u think socialism is bound to come around eventually as a reaction to captialist rugged individualism; then surely your argument is victim to itself. Capitalism is bound to follow again, as a reaction to collectivism.
Russia and Vietnam support this theory.


Hey kamo, i have a theory - thus i'm using science, thus i'm a true leftist like you! does this mean i can be let back into CC now?

[Salvador Allende]

Anarchist Tension, while I think your ideas are good in theory, as we have seen with New Jerusalem, the Paris Commune and other areas...in an imperialist world, the commune cannot exist, it will ultimately be invaded. The best way to get to the final stage is to go through Socialism, unfortunately in cases like Mao, they have been corrupted after the main leader died. Like I said, we must find a way to make sure there are no counter-revolutions.

[redstar2000]

The objective reason that all those countries "went capitalist" is that they lacked the material conditions to establish communism.

Their "socialism" was a mixture of primitive capitalist accumulation and "Oriental despotism"...as soon as they established the minimal conditions for the emergence of modern capitalism, that's what happened.

The details are, of course, not without warning. If there is a proletarian revolution in an advanced capitalist country and a "political center of gravity" (a centralized state apparatus) is established, the outcome is not likely to be a happy one.

If your job is "to act like a boss", then, sooner or later, you will start to think like a boss...and, in a short time, you will not see any reason why you shouldn't be permanent boss...that is, owner!

Therefore, you should avoid any group with a perspective of establishing a "socialist state" as a "transition" to communism...if they should win, they will begin with a somewhat more humane version of what we have now (class society) and end by restoring capitalism openly.

Don't give them the chance to do that!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 12 2004, 05:08 AM
while I think your ideas are good in theory
That is the starting point.


as we have seen with New Jerusalem, the Paris Commune and other areas...in an imperialist world, the commune cannot exist, it will ultimately be invaded.

In these very small and isolated occasions these communes could not have lasted. How could they? Paris was overwhelmed by a vast army, and remember it was surrounded as a city from all sides. It was amazing they lasted so long.

I am talking about national and international class action against the state and creating hundreds of these communes which are co-ordinated and organized.


The best way to get to the final stage is to go through Socialism, unfortunately in cases like Mao, they have been corrupted after the main leader died.

The state will invariably not lead to communism. The state opposes the creation of a statless society. You can not use the thing you want to destroy. A state is designed to protect itself. The armed forces, police force, the judicery, the eonomic organization is all geared into the state. It exists as an entity of organization, power and control. How can it then "wither away." It is impossible.

Have you ever tried cleaning dishes with dirt?. You never get the outcome you were hoping for.

[Roses in the Hospital]

If your job is "to act like a boss", then, sooner or later, you will start to think like a boss...and, in a short time, you will not see any reason why you shouldn't be permanent boss...that is, owner!

That's a somewhat cynacle point of view. Surely with real, dedicated Marxists who could resist corruption, at the top ,and I firmly believe there are such people, even if they've yet to emerge as socialist leaders, then you would not have a class who 'began to act like the boss' but a class who could guide the people on the way to Communism...


The solution is to smash the state from the beginning, and hand over power to the workers from the beginning.

A time when the workers of any country would have the right conditions and motivation to run society without a state is decades, if not centuries away. Would you not prefer to live in a progressive Socialist state in the mean time?

[redstar2000]

That's a somewhat cynical point of view. Surely with real, dedicated Marxists who could resist corruption, at the top, and I firmly believe there are such people, even if they've yet to emerge as socialist leaders, then you would not have a class who 'began to act like the boss' but a class who could guide the people on the way to Communism...

Yes I am, like Marx, "cynical"...I think that what you do determines, sooner or later, what you are.

Your "real dedicated Marxist" who could "resist corruption" is imaginary...put into a position where corruption is one of the available options, why not be corrupt? Just a little, at first, and then a little more and then a little more until...it's all corrupt!

There may be a few individuals who can resist corruption, but they have little influence on the social totality. Lenin was personally modest with regard to material comforts...but most of the leading Bolsheviks lived like minor aristocrats by 1919 or so. Stalin also lived modestly...but his associates traveled "first class".

Neither Lenin nor Stalin were at all modest when it came to decision-making power of course...they both thought that they should decide everything of importance, period!

The dead giveaway is that none of these "dedicated Marxists" ever even tried to "guide the people to communism". Yes, they would have failed (because of material conditions) but they didn't even try.

I think the lesson of 20th century "communism" is very clear: if you want communism, then fight for that. Don't accept any "transitions" that don't transit you anywhere except some place where you don't want to go.


A time when the workers of any country would have the right conditions and motivation to run society without a state is decades, if not centuries away.

I think that's nonsense, but even if true, then so be it. A new form of class society that retains all the worst features of existing class society is not worth a broken fingernail, much less a revolution.


Would you not prefer to live in a progressive Socialist state in the mean time?

Why? If you're still a wage-slave, what difference does the identity of the master make...or the color of the flags?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 03:47 PM
The objective reason that all those countries "went capitalist" is that they lacked the material conditions to establish communism.
Youv'e provided no evidence to support that assertion.


Their "socialism" was a mixture of primitive capitalist accumulation and "Oriental despotism"...as soon as they established the minimal conditions for the emergence of modern capitalism, that's what happened.

That's not true. The USSR was a modern industrial society by the 1950s. Tt established what you regard as the minimal conditions for the emergence of a modern capitalist state in the '50s. Yet it didn't collapse for 40 years. Vietnam & Cambodia are still "underdeveloped" countries with less industry, yet Cambodia switched back to market capitalism years ago and Vietnam is now allowing Disney's sweatshops in, much like China. The end of Marxist-Leninist states in Algeria and Nigeria happened well before they had fully industrialized. Furthermore, if establishing the "minimal conditions for the emergence of modern capitalism" is the reason they collapsed/adopted market capitalism then why should most of this happen at around the same time?

The reason the Leninist states developed a bureucratic ruling class and all this is because they implemented a dictatorship of the proletariat. See Russia: Revolution, Counter-Revolution (http://question-everything.mahost.org/History/Russian_Revolution.html)

Explanations differ for each country, but the big crumbling/retreat of Leninist states (including the fall of the USSR) was due mainly to developments in international politics. Western imperialists were bigger and more powerful and were able to contain & eventually outcompete the Leninist states. The Soviet defeat in the Afghan war, which had a Vietnam-like effect on the USSR, was one major factor in this.

[Salvador Allende]

Morpheus, another key reason for the Soviet collapse was because the entire movement became split. Without the world-wide movement the Soviets and their Khruchovism were confined to an area to die.

Cambodia did not go back to capitalism of their own free-will, they were invaded by Soviet-backed Vietnam.

And actually, under Comrade Koba, the USSR became one of the leading industrial nations by the end of the 1930's.

Also, you completely misunderstood the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx mentioned a dictatorship of the proletariat, however, it directly means a dictatorship BY the proletariat not a dictatorship OVER them.

[Roses in the Hospital]

put into a position where corruption is one of the available options, why not be corrupt?

Just because most of the leaders of socialism in the past became 'corrupt' dosen't mean that every leader in the future will. Saying that it does is the same kind of argument as 'communism never worked in the past so it won't work in the future.'


I think that's nonsense

What's your evidence for that opinion?
Admitadly I'm speaking mainly from a UK perspective here, but I think its true of many developed western cultures, when I say that genrally people prefer leaving most decisions to politicians (bigger things like the Iraq war maybe different) they sipmly can't be bothered with the levels of democracy that would be needed to govern a communist system. Falling turnouts at elections support this point of view. With a transistion stage people could be encouraged and taught again to love and be proud of their democratic rights...


QUOTE
Would you not prefer to live in a progressive Socialist state in the mean time?



Why? If you're still a wage-slave, what difference does the identity of the master make...or the color of the flags?

You might still be a wage slave but you'd be a wage slave working for a state which values and cares for you rather than a fat cat Capatalist who only cares about his own wallet...

[redstar2000]

The USSR was a modern industrial society by the 1950s. It established what you regard as the minimal conditions for the emergence of a modern capitalist state in the '50s. Yet it didn't collapse for 40 years.

It didn't really "collapse" at all, for that matter.

I suspect that it was the Khrushchevite "reforms" of the mid-1950s that first reflected the arrival of the USSR at the "threshold" of modern capitalism -- mainly the linkage of managerial compensation to productivity. This would supply a "reason" for the manager to begin to treat "his factory" as a possession.

I also think the spread of corruption from the Asian provinces of the USSR into the rest of the country played an important role in the growth of the "black market" and the eventual diversion of state production into that market.

1992 was a formality; the USSR had begun the transition to modern capitalism well before that.


Vietnam & Cambodia are still "underdeveloped" countries with less industry, yet Cambodia switched back to market capitalism years ago and Vietnam is now allowing Disney's sweatshops in, much like China.

No, not like China, really. China under Mao developed a vigorous native bourgeoisie "ready" to compete on the world market. Cambodia and Vietnam do not seem to have made it to that level...they seem to be becoming neo-colonies rather than full-fledged modern capitalist countries.


The end of Marxist-Leninist states in Algeria and Nigeria happened well before they had fully industrialized.

Well, I don't know if that "Marxist-Leninist" label makes much sense when applied to Algeria...and I'm not aware that Nigeria ever had such a regime.

I don't wish to imply that I favor a "rigid schematic" in which "all" Leninist revolutions "invariably" industrialize and then are "automatically" succeeded by modern capitalist regimes. That seems to me to be the predominate trend...but it's certainly possible to have other outcomes.

Cuba, for example, did not industrialize...and the probable consequence of the end of the present regime is a return to neo-colonial status.


Western imperialists were bigger and more powerful and were able to contain & eventually outcompete the Leninist states.

I think that's a hopelessly inadequate "explanation". It makes it sound as if all the people in Russia and China, who used to drink "Leninism Cola", one day decided that they liked "Capitalism Cola" better...and switched.

The USSR and China were individually rich in resources, population, and even, towards the end, in modern technology. There was no credible external threat that made them "give up" on "socialism".


Just because most of the leaders of socialism in the past became 'corrupt' doesn't mean that every leader in the future will.

I did mention, as a matter of fact, that there could be individual exceptions.

But this is a society that you're talking about here. It's one that still has wage-labor, money, rationing of consumer goodies by disposable income, etc.

One or a few "uncorrupt" people will not have a measurable impact on the incentive for corruption for the vast majority.

Especially the party hierarchy...who are in the best position to skim off the cream at the top.

Who had the highest meat consumption in the old USSR? (In Order) 1. The party hierarchy; 2. Managers of meat-packing facilities; 3. workers at those facilities; 4. retail butchers; and a very, very distant 5...everybody else.

I read once that towards the end of the Brezhnev era, up to 50% of all consumer production went directly into the black market.


...I think it's true of many developed western cultures, when I say that generally people prefer leaving most decisions to politicians (bigger things like the Iraq war [are] maybe different); they simply can't be bothered with the levels of democracy that would be needed to govern a communist system.

Well, it's not like they have a choice in the matter, is it?

Why bother yourself with matters over which you have no control?


Falling turnouts at elections support this point of view.

Or perhaps people realize that their "vote" makes no difference.

Which is true, of course.


With a transition stage people could be encouraged and taught again to love and be proud of their democratic rights...

You mean the right to vote "yes"? We have that now.


You might still be a wage slave but you'd be a wage slave working for a state which values and cares for you rather than a fat cat Capitalist who only cares about his own wallet...

I don't want anyone to "value and care" for me...I want to be free.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Roses in the Hospital]

Or perhaps people realize that their "vote" makes no difference.

That's my point, it'll take a significant period of adjustment to go from having very little control over anything to complete control over everything...


One or a few "uncorrupt" people will not have a measurable impact on the incentive for corruption for the vast majority.

If a revolutionary leader emerged who you believed was such an individual would you support him, even if a 'transition' stage was one of his policies?


One thing we are assuming is that there is only one way in which to arrive at communism. Is it not feasable that communism could be arrived at from 'different angles' in different circumstances. For example if it wasn't for the trade embargo then Cuba might have been economically strong enough for Castro to hand over to the people years ago (whether he would have or not is another matter.) On the other hand the workers of an industrialized country might simply 'snap' and take over means of production etc. and govern the country directly, by themselves. Both examples are viable but the latter is, as you yourself has said a long way off, meaning the former, in the short term, is more likely...
As I said, however, in principal both versions could work...

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Salvador [email protected] 13 2004, 03:30 AM
Cambodia did not go back to capitalism of their own free-will, they were invaded by Soviet-backed Vietnam.
But Vietnam was a Marxist-Leninist state. They didn't practice Market capitalism.


And actually, under Comrade Koba, the USSR became one of the leading industrial nations by the end of the 1930's.

But then the Nazis invaded and smashed all that. Also, most people didn't see many gains until the '50s, before that increases in living standards were largely limited to the party.


Also, you completely misunderstood the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx mentioned a dictatorship of the proletariat, however, it directly means a dictatorship BY the proletariat not a dictatorship OVER them.

I don't misunderstand it, I disagree with it. Leninists need to stop thinking that because someone disagrees with them it means they don't understand your philosophy. Of course you claim the DoP will be controlled by the proletariat, but in real life it's not. In the 19th century many people predicted that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat would inevitably became a dictatorship over the proletariat and that is what has happened in all cases where it was implemented. See http://question-everything.mahost.org/Soci.../Socialism.html (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/Socialism.html) for an explanation as to why this is.

[Salvador Allende]

Vietnam had strong class-systems and was imperialist. They were also influenced by Khruschovites, they were very capitalist-thinkers. Much more of Khruschovism than Marxism-Leninism. Of course, the "dictatorship of the proletariot" can be seen in a number of different ways from a Social Democracy through Leninism and even into Khruschovism (to some extent).

[redstar2000]

If a revolutionary leader emerged who you believed was such an individual would you support him, even if a 'transition' stage was one of his policies?

Nope!

You see, he might well actually "be" a "proletarian saint"...but it's a lead pipe cinch that he's surrounded by sinners!

Specifically, careerists who have no more interest in a "transition to communism" than they have in Babylonian mythology.

Leninist parties create that kind of people.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[apathy maybe]

While I don't attempt to clean things with dirt, I have cleaned things with sand. The idea is that if you establish a 'government', with in the present states, that as closely as possible are representitive and democratic. There are a number of ways of doing this which I won't go into now (but I will, maybe, later).

When you have a truly representitive/democratic government, then you can move towards the no state idea. The problem that we have now is that the governments are controlled by the capitalist classes, if we eliminate them, well we are on the way to freedom.

To achive a state which is socialist and truely democratic, you must remove the power. You don't make it so that someone can hold onto the power for any length of time. You distribute the power (like in the USA). You make all bases of power so small that unless they are joined they can oppress anyone. You then make it impossible for the power bases to join. You can achive a state which is democratic and socialist. But yes a stateless society is even better, the next step after the perfect state.

[Salvador Allende]

the US is a bad example since in practice it is an Plutocratic Aristocracy rather than a Democratic Republic and since the US has caused more damage to other people than any nation right now.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 14 2004, 05:52 AM
a 'government', with in the present states, that as closely as possible are representitive and democratic.
A state by its very nature is undemocratic and unrepresentative. It can not be these things if it is to survive.


When you have a truly representitive/democratic government, then you can move towards the no state idea.

But the state creates a contradiction. It can never be democratic and representative. In order for it to exist you have to make it less democratic and less representative.


The problem that we have now is that the governments are controlled by the capitalist classes, if we eliminate them, well we are on the way to freedom.

That is one step. But then what do we replace it with. Another state? All we have changed is the name.


To achive a state which is socialist and truely democratic, you must remove the power.

Then a state is not a state anymore. How can a state exist if it has no power?


You don't make it so that someone can hold onto the power for any length of time.

Do we not have power or do we? What power do these individuals have? Why are you so certain that their new positions, no matter how temperol will not lead to them creating a dictatorship by using the forces they control. What happens if he is a really good speaker and he manages to convince people he is right? Power corrupts, and being determines consciousness.


You make all bases of power so small that unless they are joined they can oppress anyone. You then make it impossible for the power bases to join.

Surely this is called federalism.


But yes a stateless society is even better, the next step after the perfect state.

Then if a stateless society is more desirable then why don't we just make it so, as to say perfect state is an onxymoron, or is true insofar as it is perfect for those who wield its power.

[Red Skyscraper]

From the Communist Manifesto:

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."

As in, the proletariat controls the state and uses it as a tool to better society, not vice versa with a privileged few running the state and telling people how to run their lives as the elite sees fit.

[Salvador Allende]

And interestingly enough, Engels used but 1 historical example of the dictatorship of the proletariat and that was the Paris Commune. Quite the opposite of Khruschov's Russia.

[Red Skyscraper]

Yes. But unfortunately most people do not think that way, rather they believe that when power rests in the hands of the state under Communism, the state refers to a strong centralized government, when in truth it was supposed to be the servant of the proletariat.

This is why you end up having someone like Khrushchev at the reins of power.

[mEds]

krushchev totally fucked up the cuban missle crisis. dumb un-educated secretive un-follower of stalin, politician.

[Morpheus]

1992 was a formality; the USSR had begun the transition to modern capitalism well before that.
The USSR had been practicing state monopoly capitalism for its entire existence but 1992 wasn't just a formality. The soviet empire dissolved, political and economic structure changed drastically and inequality went through the roof. As a result of the 'free market' reforms since 1992 ten million people in the former USSR have died. That's about as many as Stalin killed. That's not a "formality."


I suspect that it was the Khrushchevite "reforms" of the mid-1950s that first reflected the arrival of the USSR at the "threshold" of modern capitalism -- mainly the linkage of managerial compensation to productivity. This would supply a "reason" for the manager to begin to treat "his factory" as a possession.

And yet they didn't implement a full-fledged market economy and dissolve the union for 40 years. If the cause of doing so was the development of industrialism why should there be such a delay? And why should any of this lead to the dissolution of the soviet empire, including the loss of Russia's satellite states and the breaking up of the USSR itself?


Cambodia and Vietnam do not seem to have made it to that level...they seem to be becoming neo-colonies rather than full-fledged modern capitalist countries. I don't wish to imply that I favor a "rigid schematic" in which "all" Leninist revolutions "invariably" industrialize and then are "automatically" succeeded by modern capitalist regimes. That seems to me to be the predominate trend...but it's certainly possible to have other outcomes.

Cuba, for example, did not industrialize...and the probable consequence of the end of the present regime is a return to neo-colonial status.

Which actually harms your theory. If the switch to market capitalism in Leninism is caused by the development of modern industrial infrastructure then why is Vietnam switching over and why is Cuba going to do the same? Why are they going back to being a neocolony? The theory that the decline of Leninism is caused primarily by international politics can explain this, one based purely on internal "material conditions" cannot.


I think that's a hopelessly inadequate "explanation". It makes it sound as if all the people in Russia and China, who used to drink "Leninism Cola", one day decided that they liked "Capitalism Cola" better...and switched.

Not at all. There happened to be something called an arms race. You were alive at the time, surely you remember all the crap about the "missile gap" and the like. We know from Soviet archives that the USSR was actually behind throughout the whole cold war. The Soviets actually preferred a less aggressive approach and wanted to make peace with the US, to divide the world between them. The US refused and took a more aggressive posture, aiming to reduce and eventually eliminate Russian influence. In order to maintain their power against the threat of US imperialism they had to participate in the arms race and devote considerable rescources to it.

The threat of US expansionism was not fictional. The US invaded Russia in 1918 and continued to threaten it after the second world war. America dropped supplies to remants of Hitler's armies operating in East Europe and sponsored decades of terrorism against the USSR.

If they wanted to maintain their power they had no choice but to devote lots of rescources to the military. Kruschev attempted to reorient the soviet empire to a less militaristic stance, but his efforts were ultimately defeated due to the threat of US aggression. Rescources spent on the military cannot be spent on internal development and concessions to the working class. Over time this crunch placed greater and greater stress on the Soviet empire, eventually destroying it.

The key event in this was the Afghan war. US support of the Mujahadeen began prior to the Soviet invasion with the hope of giving the USSR "their vietnam." In an interview Zbigniew Brezinski, Carter's national security adviser and one of the key movers in US support for the Mujahadeen, said:

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention. ... We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would. ... That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire. ... What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? (Source (http://rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank/interview_of_brezinski_.html))

The Afghan war had an effect on the USSR similar to the Vietnam war on the USA. It created deep divisions within the elite, caused a number of significant mutinies and saw revolutionary movements grow. The reason Eastern Europe was allowed to break off is because the troops would have mutinied had they been sent in. Gorbachev's reformist government was put in power, but it was too late and couldn't really save the empire within the constraints of the cold war. They were faced with rising working class unrest and left revolutionary movements (the anarchist movement grew by leaps and bounds under Gorbachev) but the Cold War limited the amount of concessions they could grant and still maintain the empire.

The only way the ruling class could stay in power was to dismantle the empire and make massive changes to the system. The dissolution of the USSR (including the rise of nationalism) and democratization reforms helped legitimize the new regimes. Initially so did dismantling the old economic system. These measures were successful in enabling the ruling class to stay in power, at the cost of their empire, and as the new regimes were (initially) seen as legitimate by most the popular movements (including the anarchist movement) collapsed.

They essentially surrendered to the US, most former soviet satellite states are now US satellite states. In several cases Washington used coercion to force them to join the other empire. In Bulgaria & Albania the renamed Communist party managed to win the elections but US funded groups forced them out of power. Yugoslavia was conquered by force. The new regimes mostly implemented a neoliberal model of capitalism for two reasons. One was the US forcing or bribing reluctant nations to comply. Another was that the legitimization of the new regimes allowed the ruling classes to launch a major offensive against the working class.

As soviet power declined, so did the rest of the Leninist states. By the late '70s most of the "third world" revolutions had been successfully defeated or contained and those which remained the US would defeat or contain in the following decade. Essentially, the counter-revolution was triumphant around the world and Leninist states became increasingly vulnerable. As US power increased and Soviet power decreased the benefits of complying with the US increased. The ruling classes of these states could benefit by bringing in foreign capital not only to replace lost Soviet aid but also as a way of deterring US aggression. If your'e maintaining a favorable foreign investment climate the US is less likely to attack you. When the USSR no longer exists to restrain US aggression the incentive to comply with US wishes is much greater.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 10 2004, 03:45 PM
The problem is the state. In order for the state to exist it has to have leaders who control poweful insitutions to keep it in place. You can not achieve a classless state by using the state. In order for the state to exist it must become like the bourgeois state. It must centralize power into the hands of a ruling elite who must control everything in order to survive.

Russia and China failed because of this reason. The state did what a state did and removed power from the workers more and more as it existed longer and longer. The solution is to smash the state from the beginning, and hand over power to the workers from the beginning. The state corrupts and the state creates opression and ultimatly revision. It's like the HIV virus. Once you start it, you just can't stop it.
How can we totally eliminate the problem of class distinction?

Class distinction will exist as long as we have different inborn talents and gifts or merits, but like what John Rawls' proposal of equalizing natural talents is impossible.

I realise the exploitation and misfortunes that the workers are facing, but is "hand over power to the workers from the beginning" a solution?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 02:51 PM
Class distinction will exist as long as we have different inborn talents and gifts or merits.
You do not distinguish class based on skill, you distinguish it based on peoples relationship to the means of production.


John Rawls' proposal of equalizing natural talents is impossible.

Why do you need to equalise talent? Some people enjoy having certain talents than others. That does not mean that they should take precedent or importance of people. Having 'authority about' is completely different to having 'authority over.'


"hand over power to the workers from the beginning" a solution?

Yes.

[Fidelbrand]

Comrade TAT,

thanks for the reply.

I also want to ask: Without a state to remedy the disparities among the different sorts of people to avoid exploitation, how can the class struggle be ended? I know sadly that it has been historically proven so far that states do no betterment for the workers in most situations, but how can an anarchy alleviate the problems of the workers?

[redstar2000]

As a result of the 'free market' reforms since 1992 ten million people in the former USSR have died. That's about as many as Stalin killed. That's not a "formality."

I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of the "body count". The same people (with a few minor exceptions) were in power before and after 1992 in Russia.

They administered state-monopoly capitalism before 1992 and monopoly capitalism after 1992.

(I don't think, by the way, that the USSR could be said to be state-monopoly capitalist until after Lenin's New Economic Policy was abandoned by Stalin...say 1927-30 or so.)


And yet they didn't implement a full-fledged market economy and dissolve the union for 40 years. If the cause of doing so was the development of industrialism why should there be such a delay?

Beats me! The "timing" of history is rather erratic -- as I'm sure you've noticed.

It would be great if we could not only "predict" what will happen but also when.

It's interesting that back in the late 1870s, Engels "predicted" that Russia would have its "1789" (a bourgeois revolution) "soon". (He even thought it would happen as a result of an unsuccessful war with Germany!) He was right about the event...but 40 years off in the timing. Why?

Like I said, beats me.


And why should any of this lead to the dissolution of the soviet empire, including the loss of Russia's satellite states and the breaking up of the USSR itself?

Gross ineptitude?

China, after all, has managed its transition to capitalism much more competently...there's been no "break-up" there.

Perhaps in another decade or two, Russia will exert its power in their part of the world with greater coherence, regaining at least the Ukraine and Belarus.


If the switch to market capitalism in Leninism is caused by the development of modern industrial infrastructure, then why is Vietnam switching over and why is Cuba going to do the same?

Perhaps pre-capitalist Leninist economies are simply not viable unless they are part of a larger Leninist economic sphere...they "need" a USSR or a "People's" China in order to function.

When those places became indifferent to or even hostile to Cuba/Vietnam, they had little alternative but to return to the capitalist world market and seek new masters.

Even here there is a difference; from what I can see, the Cubans and the Vietnamese seek to have many trading partners in the "first world"...instead of being client states of a single imperial power. Their chances are probably not all that good...but greater than zero.


In order to maintain their power against the threat of US imperialism [the USSR] had to participate in the arms race and devote considerable resources to it.

Yes, I'm aware of this theory...and by no means would I rule out altogether its effects.

But it seems obvious to me that the USSR spent far more on military defense than it actually had to...a credible deterrent to U.S. imperialism didn't have to cost anywhere near what the Russians spent.

Nor were they "required" to intervene in Afghanistan and, having done so, to do it with such gross ineptitude.

Marxism suggests that a country in transit to modern capitalism will be imperialist; it doesn't say that they must be intelligent imperialists.


The reason Eastern Europe was allowed to break off is because the [Russian] troops would have mutinied had they been sent in.

This would seem to be a crucial point in your argument...yet I'm not aware that Gorbachev or any other Russian leaders of that period have ever made any reference to fears of mutiny.

In any event, I don't think it was "inevitable" that the Russian transition to monopoly capitalist would involve the loss of nearly all of their empire...and, as I said, I'll think they'll get some of it back.

Or, perhaps Russia itself will become a "super-colony" of the EU, Japan, and China...the evolution of modern imperialism is still largely "uncharted waters".


They essentially surrendered to the US...

In a sense, Russia may have; China certainly did not. In fact, the Chinese give every impression of creating a genuine challenge to American hegemony in the next few decades.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 03:21 PM
Without a state to remedy the disparities among the different sorts of people to avoid exploitation, how can the class struggle be ended?
A revolutionary situation of this kind would see millions of workers and even petty-bourgeois people take to the streets to demand change in unity with each other. In any area which has been liberated, the means of production and the political process would be collectivised. Much like Barcelona in the Spanish civil war, meaning that everything would be owned by everyone. Communism.

You safe gaurd against exploitation by being deligent and aware. This is why class consciousness is so important. When people understand their material conditions and their relationship within it, the ability to act in a revolutionary way becomes clearer.

In a conscious revolution, the ability for people to become powerful or to exploit will be extremly difficult. The purpose of a revolution would be to make sure these things did not happen. Workers councils and militias would work to ensure that workers democracy and control over the means of production, and over the defence of the revolution was kept completely safe.


but how can an anarchy alleviate the problems of the workers?

I don't really understand this question. Do you mean how in a revolutionary anarchist society? or do you mean compared to leninism?

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 16 2004, 02:32 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 16 2004, 02:32 PM)
[email protected] 16 2004, 03:21 PM
Without a state to remedy the disparities among the different sorts of people to avoid exploitation, how can the class struggle be ended?
A revolutionary situation of this kind would see millions of workers and even petty-bourgeois people take to the streets to demand change in unity with each other. In any area which has been liberated, the means of production and the political process would be collectivised. Much like Barcelona in the Spanish civil war, meaning that everything would be owned by everyone. Communism.

You safe gaurd against exploitation by being deligent and aware. This is why class consciousness is so important. When people understand their material conditions and their relationship within it, the ability to act in a revolutionary way becomes clearer.

In a conscious revolution, the ability for people to become powerful or to exploit will be extremly difficult. The purpose of a revolution would be to make sure these things did not happen. Workers councils and militias would work to ensure that workers democracy and control over the means of production, and over the defence of the revolution was kept completely safe.


but how can an anarchy alleviate the problems of the workers?

I don't really understand this question. Do you mean how in a revolutionary anarchist society? or do you mean compared to leninism? [/b]
So, instead of a fully runned state, the military comissions and workers' councils will help to control the situation? I think I should read more about anarchism, since I have always thought that anarchism is like fullblown communism without any monitory appartuses.....
Actually, would you oppose to a state-run socialism/communism, if it had proved itself to be conscious of all citizens of all walks of life (forget about the past failures of Lennism)? Because I was wondering, workers' councils and militia are important, but the 2 of them might not be enough to manage the whole country. Also, I also wanna ask about the other professions, e.g. doctors, artists and other professions, are they all embraced in a single definition - Workers?

For "Do you mean how in a revolutionary anarchist society? or do you mean compared to leninism?" I mean the latter, since you have explained the former.

thanks mate,
FB.

[Dyst]

It could be fixed by simple restrictions of the state and its power towards people. Just for an example we could create laws which sets that a man/woman cannot be president for more than 4 years, and then he has to wait 4 years before he can participate in elections again.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 05:25 PM
So, instead of a fully runned state, the military comissions and workers' councils will help to control the situation?
Every community would organize its own defence militia that would be co-ordinated at regional and national level to some extents. They would be used to fight counter revolutionaries and protect collectives. They would be democratically controlled by everyone in it.

Workers councils are names given to the bodies of workers who would operate and adminstrate the means of production, which again would be organized regionally and nationally. Internationally if needs be.

Each community would have its own collective assembly, which would be a place to discuss community issues. If it was necessary these community assemblys would elect regional assemblies, and if needs be national assemblies and international and so on. These assemblies would not be a political enitity, but merely an administrative one, with mandates from their respective area.


I think I should read more about anarchism, since I have always thought that anarchism is like fullblown communism without any monitory appartuses

That is what it is.

Che-Lives Dictionary (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21255)

Has lots of links to basic and advanced information.

Anarchism and the Left (http://anarchism.ws/left.html)

Links to essays from varying subjects, from leninism, marxism and social democracy.


Actually, would you oppose to a state-run socialism/communism, if it had proved itself to be conscious of all citizens of all walks of life (forget about the past failures of Lennism)?

I don't think it's possible.


doctors, artists and other professions, are they all embraced in a single definition - Workers?

Doctors and lawyers etc would be defined as petty-bourgeois. But if they made a conscious decision to destroy capitalism and create communism then there's no problem.


I mean the latter, since you have explained the former.

Leninism seeks to use an unconscious working class to achieve political power for a vangaurd, which will then wield the state over them in their name. This cannot lead to communism. Anarchist communism can.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 16 2004, 04:10 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 16 2004, 04:10 PM)
[email protected] 16 2004, 05:25 PM
So, instead of a fully runned state, the military comissions and workers' councils will help to control the situation?
Every community would organize its own defence militia that would be co-ordinated at regional and national level to some extents. They would be used to fight counter revolutionaries and protect collectives. They would be democratically controlled by everyone in it.

Workers councils are names given to the bodies of workers who would operate and adminstrate the means of production, which again would be organized regionally and nationally. Internationally if needs be.

Each community would have its own collective assembly, which would be a place to discuss community issues. If it was necessary these community assemblys would elect regional assemblies, and if needs be national assemblies and international and so on. These assemblies would not be a political enitity, but merely an administrative one, with mandates from their respective area.


I think I should read more about anarchism, since I have always thought that anarchism is like fullblown communism without any monitory appartuses

That is what it is.

Che-Lives Dictionary (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21255)

Has lots of links to basic and advanced information.

Anarchism and the Left (http://anarchism.ws/left.html)

Links to essays from varying subjects, from leninism, marxism and social democracy.


Actually, would you oppose to a state-run socialism/communism, if it had proved itself to be conscious of all citizens of all walks of life (forget about the past failures of Lennism)?

I don't think it's possible.


doctors, artists and other professions, are they all embraced in a single definition - Workers?

Doctors and lawyers etc would be defined as petty-bourgeois. But if they made a conscious decision to destroy capitalism and create communism then there's no problem.


I mean the latter, since you have explained the former.

Leninism seeks to use an unconscious working class to achieve political power for a vangaurd, which will then wield the state over them in their name. This cannot lead to communism. Anarchist communism can. [/b]
Comrade TAT, grateful for the comprehensive explanations and info. given. Although it sounds a bit utopian to me, but under capitalism, any political/non-political arrangements other than it is deemed to be called utopian, I will burrow into the subject (after my uni. exams :P )for better future discussions.

thanks again,
FB. ;)

[Salvador Allende]

Whoever said China would challenge the US is wrong. China stopped any movement towards Communism in 1976 when Jiang Qing was thrown out in the coup. Just as the Soviet Union stopped any movement towards Communism when Khruschov and Malenkov took over. Cuba and North Korea are the only two nations whose government has yet to be fully corrupted. Nepal will soon join them because of the revolution there.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 06:44 PM
it sounds a bit utopian to me


Anarchist communism is often attacked as being a utopian dream since it is both anti‑capitalist and anti‑state. The argument goes that both of these are necessary because of "human nature". Won't new forms of exploitation and new classes arise? Isn't it inevitable that some people have more power than others? Isn't the state necessary to keep order? We say a loud "no!" to these arguments. Within the general context of a stateless and moneyless society, the new society will create communities and other social relations which will be expressions of individual and social desires. There is no antagonism here between the individual and the collective for two reasons. Firstly, the individual belongs to and survives within the context of the collective, so the affinity groups, co-operatives, industrial and neighbourhood councils which will act as the social means of organising and acting in society will simply be extensions of the individual within society. Secondly, all systems and groups established to get things done will have built into them a number of devices preventing the abuse of power. They will be assemblies of those people directly involved, affected by or with an interest in whatever is being done or proposed and should any form of delegation be necessary then the delegates will be directly elected, easily‑removable and temporary.

Aspects of Anarchism (http://flag.blackened.net/af/ace/aspects.html)

[apathy maybe]

TAT - yes the state that I am arguing for would be a very federalised state. This would then make it easy to move towards a state-less society. However, I think it needs to happen on a global scale before the final step can be taken. However, the federal system would not be country/state/local, but more local/occasional autonomous/country (or area)/world. This way we can have a coordingating body at a top level with as much power as possible at the lowest level. But it would still be a 'state' structure because the upper levels would have some power to defend and coordinate against non-members.

[The Feral Underclass]

I cannot make my point about the nature of a state anymore clearer.

[gaf]

corruption is greed mix with power......