Originally posted by Matty_UK+October 18, 2006 10:48 pm--> (Matty_UK @ October 18, 2006 10:48 pm)
Originally posted by Blue Dog
[email protected] 18 2006, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by
[email protected] 18 2006, 03:20 PM
You really have to check up on historical materialism.
Communism in pre-capitalist (or mostly pre-capitalist in the case of Russia) countries is a phenomenon that Marx could not predict, probably because in studying the material causes of historical change he can only look at Europe which was the fastest to develop so couldn't imitate anyone. European communist ideas developed because of the social relations surrounding production which made some degree of class consciousness arise; everywhere else the ideas came before they would have naturally developed and the poor in these countries were pissed off for various reasons; meaning revolutions were attempted.
But socialism is only going to work when the material conditions are as such so that technological innovation has the potential to abolish scarcity; early capitalism works everyone hard and produces quicker than the half-baked socialism in China and Russia. Late capitalism however sees human labour become increasingly unnecassary and sees the capitalists leaving productive apparatus idle, ignoring technological advances, and destroying much of what they do produce in order to keep profit up.
R.e. development into state capitalism; for a start if the society is freer and wealthier there is going to be huge support for it and hatred for the reactionaries who seek a return to capitalism, so even state capitalism would be a step up from capitalism. All economic systems will suppress those who are a threat to it-if the economic system is not satisfactory and there are a multitude of threats to it it will ALWAYS turn authoritarian. Capitalism turns fascism, and socialism apparently turns state-capitalist. USSR and China didn't have the class consciousness or material conditions for it to be welcomed by all so that was inevitable in my opinion.
But you'd get a wide range of opinions on the last paragraph.
But then I'd argue that the material conditions haven't yet been reached and the precautionary principles (along with the principle of double effect) both suggest that, from an individual standpoint, it impossible to justify re-attempting revolutionary socialism.
Also, from a Marxist perspective, if the material conditions are met and democracy is upheld, capitalism will be peacefully abolished. Therefore, the only thing any Socialist needs to oppose is totalitarianism, without any necessity to destroy the government and establish some radical regime, which is even more oppressive.
If a government dedicated to expropriating the capitalists property is democratically elected the capitalists will turn their military on it very fast. You aren't going to get a peaceful transition, that is a liberal pipe dream. It's not nice to come to terms with the world isn't nice. Deal with it.
And how have material conditions not been reached?[/b]
We've already seen steady rises in welfare spending. If the trend continues, the government may eventually stop protecting private property.
The material conditions have not been reached because a worldwide revolution has no started, Communism has not been established, and every mini-revolution attempt by gangs of bandits in third-world countries has failed.
Originally posted by cb9'
[email protected] 25, 2006 11:22 pm
Socialism has not worked so far for a few reasons. First because it is a relativly new ideolegy... well not counting utopian socialism. but anyway we have to remeber that democracy took thousands of years to work, so i wouldn't be to quick to denounce socialism.
second many countries just got the means of production needed for socialism. the problems with the revolutions in china and russia was they hadn't really entered capitalism had then ofcourse hadn't reached the point were capitalism is pointless and needs to be taken down. A socialist revolution is where the workers take contol of the means of production, so it's hard for socialism to exist before industrialization.
i have a fealing i'll be able to give you a few examples in the next decade or 2 though
Sounds like the same song-and-dance of every other failed revolutionary.
It's always the same story: "Oh, the last revolution failed.. But no, this time it's different! This time, IT'S FOR REAL!"
Originally posted by Salvador
[email protected] 26, 2006 12:53 am
Real and existing Socialism:
1917-1953 Soviet Union
1944-1985 Albania
1948-Now Korea
1949-1978 China
I support all of those, though three of them made many errors.
The process of building Socialism was quite new to the Soviet Union, it had never been done anywhere, there were no pre-existing models of how to construct advanced Socialism, but they pressed onward and completed the initial revolution during the life of Lenin and during the life of Stalin industrialised and collectivised. Several errors were made. While Stalin accepted and knew that a Red Bourgeois formed, he did not seek out the reason for this, nor did he try to educate the cadres and people on this, he merely sought to remove them from the Party when they revealed themselves. Hence, it is no wonder that Soviet Socialism was reversed after his death and only a few comrades such as Molotov attempted to restore Socialism and defeat Revisionism, but they of course, failed and Khruschovism triumphed.
Albania, China and Korea on the other hand, all had the example of the Soviet Union to follow and knowledge of a Red Bourgeois appearing and guiding the USSR back to Capitalism. All 3 saw the solution as a kind of Cultural Revolution, but these were interpreted differently. Korea implemented the Chongsan-ri and other methods by which party cadres spent a certain amount of time in the fields or factories, and so stayed as the people and they also focused a great deal on educating the people about Left and Right Deviationism and Dogmatism. China attempted to have a similar situation, except Revisionism had grown too fast and was preventing this to a large degree, so Chairman Mao launched the Cultural Revolution. While supposed to be a mass-educational movement wherein the people removed Revisionist elements, it was not long before Left Deviationists began splitting the people, creating class antagonism between the peasantry and the proletariat and causing near civil war in some places. The Left Deviationists attacked Right Deviationists like Deng Xiaoping and Chen Yun, but ignored others like Zhou Enlai. The Left Deviationists ultimately, by their hijacking the Cultural Revolution, caused the failure of Chinese socialism and despite Chairman Hua's efforts at removing the Left Deviationists, the Right ultimately defeated the Marxist-Leninist line and restored Capitalism. Albania took a different road, though initially copying the Cultural Revolution, it itself was never intended to combat Revisionism, it was designed to combat religion. Through terror and violence, this succeeded somewhat, but Albania never once touched the premise of Revisionism and always considered it a Soviet (or later, Chinese) thing and not possible in Albania, hence Ramiz Alia found it quite easy to reverse Albanian Socialism.
There are other Socialist states that can be argued, such as North Vietnam until Ho Chi Minh's death and modern Cuba, but primarily, these 4 I have listed we can learn the most from. Today, the DPRK stands as a shining model of Socialism and Worker and Peasant Power in a state. There are also the examples of People's War in Nepal and the Philippines as well as in Colombia. By looking at and learning from the past, we can find our errors and ensure that this time we do not fall en-masse to Revisionism.
Wow. You support Stalin's brutal policy of collectivization, Mao's murder of hundreds of thousands, and man, I don't even know what to say about North Korea. CNN ran a documentary on North Korea and I've read the North Korean news.
I fail to see why a political bourgoisie is somehow better than an economic bourgoisie.
I mean, even if you reject the idea of a "political upper-class," altogether, it doesn't make much sense to advocate authoritarian dictators over bourgoisie liberals. Are you honestly going to tell me that Kim Jong-Il is better than Bill Clinton?
I can tell that you don't live in any of the countries you admire. Also, why isn't East Germany on that list? What? Did the Berlin Wall make it too obvious?
[email protected] 26, 2006 12:57 am
Can you show me examples of capitalism working successfully before 1700?
Nope, because the material conditions for Capitalism had not yet been reached... Just as the material conditions for Communism have not yet been reached. That's my point. ;)