Random Precision
24th August 2007, 23:56
During the 20th century, we saw examples of many socialist/communist movements who ended up taking control of their countries, with the goal of establishing socialism.
The first such movement, and the one which would more or less set the precedent for socialist revolutionaries around the world, was that of the Bolsheviks in Russia. I would argue that their revolution was successful in establishing socialism up to a point, but the progress was limited by various factors outside their control, the Russian Civil War and its side effects being the perennial example. Anarchists and others will disagree with this statement, but it has already been incessantly debated for so long that I do not feel the urge to back up my claims in this thread.
But I digress. Call it what you will, the Russian Revolution was the first example the world had seen of socialism on a large scale. I and most others tend to believe that the most important feature of socialism in practice is workers' self-management, and there was no shortage of that especially in the revolution's initial stages. I believe that this was possible because of the strong roots that the Bolsheviks had within the working class. Essentially, the Russian Revolution was a revolution by the workers. The moment the Bolsheviks lost the connection with the workers was when they stopped carrying the struggle for socialism forward, and the new bureaucratic class that emerged from within the party would act in its own interests rather than the interest of the proletariat.
Anarchists and Marxists have spent the last century debating at what point this happened, so I'll try to circumvent that debate as well. But the point is this: eventually the USSR DID degenerate, I would argue the complete degeneration occurred during Stalin's rule. I do not believe that anyone yet has made a successful case that workers' self-management was a widespread practice under Stalin, but I as with all other things I stand open to correction.
Now, I do not believe that any revolution has been successful in the goal establishing socialism since the Russian Revolution, with the exception of the one in Spain, which I'll discuss later. I believe that this was essentially because no revolution since then has had a fundamentally proletarian character. Understand here that I speak of revolutions that were successful in taking control of their countries. All successful socialist revolutions in the 20th century, with the exceptions of those in Russia and Spain, would fail in establishing socialism because they lacked the proletarian character that I believe is necessary. If there were any other proletarian revolutions I have missed, please let me know.
I said before that the Spanish Revolution was the exception to the failures of socialist revolutions in the 20th century since the Russian example. I believe the revolution in Spain was perhaps even more successful than the revolution in Russia at establishing socialism, and find its gains to be, once again, because of its proletarian character. But unlike the revolution in Russia, I believe that the one in Spain failed because of poor leadership. From the moment the CNT refused to seize power in Catalonia, and left the bourgeois state apparatus in its place, their revolution was doomed. I am aware that the CNT later regretted this decision and proposed dispensing with the republican government, but the fact remains that they were unwilling (or unable) to take action for that goal, and so their revolution was crushed.
Besides the Russian and Spanish Revolutions, I do not believe that there has been one victorious socialist revolution that had a fundamentally proletarian character, and this is why I believe they failed to establish socialism. I will illustrate this point with various examples.
One popular method that has put socialist movements in power all over the world has been guerilla warfare. The pre-eminent examples of this is China, as well as various insurgencies in Latin America. One such Latin American movement that ended up victorious was in Cuba.
I am by no means an expert on the revolution in China, but I do know that Mao's movement was largely composed of peasants, and also that his revolution did not establish workers' self-management through soviets or any other method. I have seen this testified to by supporters of Mao in my debates with them. The foremost example of socialism during the Chinese revolution that Maoists frequently cite is the Cultural Revolution. I would argue that its origin was a bureaucratic struggle by Mao to regain power in the CCP, and that the "revolution" itself was nothing more than a farce perpetrated with those aims in mind. The only concrete example of socialism (if it may be so called) during that period was the Shanghai Commune, which Mao soon abandoned.
The revolution in Cuba, on the other hand, was carried out by an elite of guerilla warriors, which did not originate from and in the main had little connection with the proletariat. I am, as always, open to correction, but I have not heard of many examples of workers' self-management, the central tenet of socialism, in the Cuban Revolution either.
Another way that tried to establish socialism was through the military. This occurred in many countries of Eastern Europe after the second world war. Essentially, what happened in Eastern Europe was that the Red Army took control of the country, and then proceeded to hand it over to the local Communist Party. This method succeeded in establishing a state apparatus similar to the Stalinist UUSR, and as with the USSR there was a lack of workers' self-management. I am aware of the experiments in self-management that were conducted in Tito's Yugoslavia, but these were quite limited in scope and more or less remained under the direct control of the marshal.
The final method through which 20th century socialist movements have tried to establish socialism is through control of the bourgeoisie state apparatus. The most notable example of this was Chile under Salvador Allende. While his movement was much more successful than most reformist parties in other countries, it still did not go nearly far enough in trying to establish socialism, and once it had taken a few tentative steps in the direction of socialism, it was overthrown by the military. President Allende showed the failure of reformism in that conflict when he refused to arm the workers who were ready and willing to defend him and his movement. I believe Hugo Chavez in Venezuela will face a similar crisis, and quite soon if he means to really establish socialism. The fact to be learned here is that the bourgeoisie will never allow their own state apparatus to be used for the benefit of another class. I believe that this is important so as to establish what kind of revolution is necessary, let alone a proletarian revolution. Just a way to cover all the bases.
To conclude: my thesis, derived from the central tenets of Marxism, is that a proletarian revolution is necessary to establish socialism, and the classless society of communism later on. Two examples of this, although their positive and progressive effects were short-lived, are the revolutions in Russia and Spain. All other victorious socialist revolutions have failed in establishing socialism, I would argue, because they lacked the necessary proletarian character. This is not to say that I dismiss those revolutions altogether, indeed for the most part they have made great strides in the area of social welfare especially. But they have not succeeded in establishing socialism, most noticeably the central feature of workers' self-management. There have been, generally, three different ways which have failed to establish socialism during the 20th century: the guerrilla struggle, as practiced (although in quite different forms) in China and Latin America, a foreign army giving power to the communists, as occurred in the Eastern Bloc countries, and finally the reformist attempts to establish socialism, practiced most notably in Allende's Chile. I put forth that all these revolutions failed to establish socialism because they lacked sufficient proletarian character, or in the case of Allende, because he was unwilling to take power out of the hands of the bourgeois state.
At this point, I stand open to constructive criticism, as I certainly have a few gaps as far as theory is concerned. Also, I know my historical analysis will be harshly criticized by Stalinists, but I would still like to know their thoughts. Also, anarchists might have some problems with my overview of the Russian and Spanish revolutions, but I'd prefer to leave both of those debates to the History forum.
So, what do you think? Is a proletarian revolution the only way to establish socialism, as I believe? Or can it be done other ways?
The first such movement, and the one which would more or less set the precedent for socialist revolutionaries around the world, was that of the Bolsheviks in Russia. I would argue that their revolution was successful in establishing socialism up to a point, but the progress was limited by various factors outside their control, the Russian Civil War and its side effects being the perennial example. Anarchists and others will disagree with this statement, but it has already been incessantly debated for so long that I do not feel the urge to back up my claims in this thread.
But I digress. Call it what you will, the Russian Revolution was the first example the world had seen of socialism on a large scale. I and most others tend to believe that the most important feature of socialism in practice is workers' self-management, and there was no shortage of that especially in the revolution's initial stages. I believe that this was possible because of the strong roots that the Bolsheviks had within the working class. Essentially, the Russian Revolution was a revolution by the workers. The moment the Bolsheviks lost the connection with the workers was when they stopped carrying the struggle for socialism forward, and the new bureaucratic class that emerged from within the party would act in its own interests rather than the interest of the proletariat.
Anarchists and Marxists have spent the last century debating at what point this happened, so I'll try to circumvent that debate as well. But the point is this: eventually the USSR DID degenerate, I would argue the complete degeneration occurred during Stalin's rule. I do not believe that anyone yet has made a successful case that workers' self-management was a widespread practice under Stalin, but I as with all other things I stand open to correction.
Now, I do not believe that any revolution has been successful in the goal establishing socialism since the Russian Revolution, with the exception of the one in Spain, which I'll discuss later. I believe that this was essentially because no revolution since then has had a fundamentally proletarian character. Understand here that I speak of revolutions that were successful in taking control of their countries. All successful socialist revolutions in the 20th century, with the exceptions of those in Russia and Spain, would fail in establishing socialism because they lacked the proletarian character that I believe is necessary. If there were any other proletarian revolutions I have missed, please let me know.
I said before that the Spanish Revolution was the exception to the failures of socialist revolutions in the 20th century since the Russian example. I believe the revolution in Spain was perhaps even more successful than the revolution in Russia at establishing socialism, and find its gains to be, once again, because of its proletarian character. But unlike the revolution in Russia, I believe that the one in Spain failed because of poor leadership. From the moment the CNT refused to seize power in Catalonia, and left the bourgeois state apparatus in its place, their revolution was doomed. I am aware that the CNT later regretted this decision and proposed dispensing with the republican government, but the fact remains that they were unwilling (or unable) to take action for that goal, and so their revolution was crushed.
Besides the Russian and Spanish Revolutions, I do not believe that there has been one victorious socialist revolution that had a fundamentally proletarian character, and this is why I believe they failed to establish socialism. I will illustrate this point with various examples.
One popular method that has put socialist movements in power all over the world has been guerilla warfare. The pre-eminent examples of this is China, as well as various insurgencies in Latin America. One such Latin American movement that ended up victorious was in Cuba.
I am by no means an expert on the revolution in China, but I do know that Mao's movement was largely composed of peasants, and also that his revolution did not establish workers' self-management through soviets or any other method. I have seen this testified to by supporters of Mao in my debates with them. The foremost example of socialism during the Chinese revolution that Maoists frequently cite is the Cultural Revolution. I would argue that its origin was a bureaucratic struggle by Mao to regain power in the CCP, and that the "revolution" itself was nothing more than a farce perpetrated with those aims in mind. The only concrete example of socialism (if it may be so called) during that period was the Shanghai Commune, which Mao soon abandoned.
The revolution in Cuba, on the other hand, was carried out by an elite of guerilla warriors, which did not originate from and in the main had little connection with the proletariat. I am, as always, open to correction, but I have not heard of many examples of workers' self-management, the central tenet of socialism, in the Cuban Revolution either.
Another way that tried to establish socialism was through the military. This occurred in many countries of Eastern Europe after the second world war. Essentially, what happened in Eastern Europe was that the Red Army took control of the country, and then proceeded to hand it over to the local Communist Party. This method succeeded in establishing a state apparatus similar to the Stalinist UUSR, and as with the USSR there was a lack of workers' self-management. I am aware of the experiments in self-management that were conducted in Tito's Yugoslavia, but these were quite limited in scope and more or less remained under the direct control of the marshal.
The final method through which 20th century socialist movements have tried to establish socialism is through control of the bourgeoisie state apparatus. The most notable example of this was Chile under Salvador Allende. While his movement was much more successful than most reformist parties in other countries, it still did not go nearly far enough in trying to establish socialism, and once it had taken a few tentative steps in the direction of socialism, it was overthrown by the military. President Allende showed the failure of reformism in that conflict when he refused to arm the workers who were ready and willing to defend him and his movement. I believe Hugo Chavez in Venezuela will face a similar crisis, and quite soon if he means to really establish socialism. The fact to be learned here is that the bourgeoisie will never allow their own state apparatus to be used for the benefit of another class. I believe that this is important so as to establish what kind of revolution is necessary, let alone a proletarian revolution. Just a way to cover all the bases.
To conclude: my thesis, derived from the central tenets of Marxism, is that a proletarian revolution is necessary to establish socialism, and the classless society of communism later on. Two examples of this, although their positive and progressive effects were short-lived, are the revolutions in Russia and Spain. All other victorious socialist revolutions have failed in establishing socialism, I would argue, because they lacked the necessary proletarian character. This is not to say that I dismiss those revolutions altogether, indeed for the most part they have made great strides in the area of social welfare especially. But they have not succeeded in establishing socialism, most noticeably the central feature of workers' self-management. There have been, generally, three different ways which have failed to establish socialism during the 20th century: the guerrilla struggle, as practiced (although in quite different forms) in China and Latin America, a foreign army giving power to the communists, as occurred in the Eastern Bloc countries, and finally the reformist attempts to establish socialism, practiced most notably in Allende's Chile. I put forth that all these revolutions failed to establish socialism because they lacked sufficient proletarian character, or in the case of Allende, because he was unwilling to take power out of the hands of the bourgeois state.
At this point, I stand open to constructive criticism, as I certainly have a few gaps as far as theory is concerned. Also, I know my historical analysis will be harshly criticized by Stalinists, but I would still like to know their thoughts. Also, anarchists might have some problems with my overview of the Russian and Spanish revolutions, but I'd prefer to leave both of those debates to the History forum.
So, what do you think? Is a proletarian revolution the only way to establish socialism, as I believe? Or can it be done other ways?