Why hasn't it worked?

[Dawkinista!]

I have a question, a nagging thought thats been eating out my brains for the last few hours, so I want to let it out on RevLeft so you can all argue about it.

I've wondered about this a lot, and the answer seems simple to me but then again its not...

Here goes:

Why have all previous attempts to construct a socialist/communist state failed? I mean no leftist state has ever lived up to its ideals or true values...

Soviet Union: Was ruled over by a maniac of a dictator who killed millions of people, and the country eventually collapsed because of pressure from the streets as a result of the perestroika (or glasnost reforms)

China: the country that abuses the Human Rights the most... (How in the world if that leftist ideals??)

Every single communist or socialist state has fallen into disarray and eventually collapsed except 5 states (that can only keep control by severe opression of the population - and again, this is contrary to leftist ideals!)

I am a firm believer in the doctrine and I hold socialist ideals close to my heart, but I can't help but wonder why it has never ever worked! Will somebody please give me a coherent answer and put me out of my misery!

[awayish]

well a human community functions in ways underanalysed by the theories that promise early fruits and painted every 'red' state socialist.

the reality is, socialist communities are radically different from capitalist ones, not only by teh way agents appear to function, but by the psychological characteristics of the members and their relations.

the way things work, your question is the surprising one, when compared to 'will it ever work.'

[piet11111]

thats because none of those states actually put the workers in power instead they are governed by bureaucrats that carve out their own little "kingdom" and set up some beneficial extra's for their "work"

[Random Precision]

Soviet Union: Was ruled over by a maniac of a dictator who killed millions of people, and the country eventually collapsed because of pressure from the streets as a result of the perestroika (or glasnost reforms)

I cannot possibly explain by myself how the Soviet Union degenerated. I can, however, suggest the best work to date on the subject, L.D. Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed". You can read it for free here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/19...evbet/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm)

In any case, even the most hardcore of Stalinists will admit that the USSR stopped being socialist long before perestroika.


China: the country that abuses the Human Rights the most... (How in the world if that leftist ideals??)

China was never socialist, it was led by a bureaucratic regime that claimed to be establishing socialism, rather like the USSR. Likewise, Maoists will claim that China today is not socialist, although it took some of them a while to realize that.


Every single communist or socialist state has fallen into disarray and eventually collapsed except 5 states (that can only keep control by severe opression of the population - and again, this is contrary to leftist ideals!)

I am a firm believer in the doctrine and I hold socialist ideals close to my heart, but I can't help but wonder why it has never ever worked! Will somebody please give me a coherent answer and put me out of my misery!

You ask a complex question that is debated on this board every day. My overly reductionist answer would be that the workers were not in power in any so-called socialist state, and if they were, power was quickly usurped by bureaucrats. However, I would stipulate that this occurred not because of any flaw with Leninist (or "authoritarian communist" as anarchists like to call it) theory, but rather the material conditions during the revolution, especially in the USSR. But there are most certainly others, most of them challenging your question's assumptions. Hang around for a while, see what makes sense and I'm sure you'll have your answer soon.

I look forward to your participation on the board!

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Dawkinista!@September 26, 2007 08:55 pm
Why have all previous attempts to construct a socialist/communist state failed?

"Even if you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power. Within a year he would be as murderous as the tsar himself" - Bakunin.

The reason it failed is because the authorotarian communist theory is inherantly self-destructive and contrary to the interests of the working class in the long term.

[The Grey Blur]

You should read more into the USSR, China etc. Don't just believe what you read in your history books (written for you from a capitalist perspective).

What US is also sort of true, these revolutions failed because in the end power was taken away from the masses, in the USSR due to the disasters of famine, civil war and invasion by the capitalist states a democratic worker's state was just not possible any more. Then Stalin gained power and there was no reverting to the original democratic structure. I don't know enough about China so I will leave that for others...

[spartan]

US:
"Even if you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power. Within a year he would be as murderous as the tsar himself" - Bakunin.
This is one of my favourate Bakunin quotes and it is one of his best as nothing else could be as close to the truth as that statement of his (And history proves good old Mikhail right on that one folks :D ). Authoritarian Communism is the biggest joke going on the left nowadays and the majority of leftists are disgusted by the actions of these reactionary Fascists hiding under once respectable (But now because of these bastards taboo) terms such as Communist and Socialist. Also i would just like to add to the original poster that the various Communist and Socialist states you speak of were not in fact Communist or Socialist but were state Capitalist Fascist militarist hellholes!

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 26, 2007 09:46 pm
What US is also sort of true, these revolutions failed because in the end power was taken away from the masses, in the USSR due to the disasters of famine, civil war and invasion by the capitalist states a democratic worker's state was just not possible any more.
True. But even if there hadn't bee such strife, it's enevitable that the socialist state would have degenerated into state-capitalism. Firstly because the solidification of power and crack-down on non bolshevik workers unions/organisations.

"I consider that if the civil war had not plundered our economic organs of all that was strongest, most independent, most endowed with initiative, we should undoubtedly have entered the path of one-man management in the sphere of economic administration much sooner and much less painfully.” Leon Trotsky

[Red Scare]

because they put all their power in one leader, and then slowly the workers lost all their powers to the state as they became totalitarian messes

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 09:11 pm
thats because none of those states actually put the workers in power instead they are governed by bureaucrats that carve out their own little "kingdom" and set up some beneficial extra's for their "work"
Well, of course. But the questions are, why wasn't the working class able to take and maintain power, and why do these cliques of bureaucrats form and take control?

Luís Henrique

[Robespierre2.0]

Bwaahhh fuck that revisionist crap, socialism has indeed worked. Cuba, if you look past all the bourgeois propaganda directed against it, is actually a functioning socialist country.

Have a look at this: http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

[awayish]

i dont consider a top down planned economy with no means of transforming into a socialist community an improvement. there is not even a transitiional device for when things get complicated later.

[Dawkinista!]

@ Marxosaurus Rex

Thanks for the link! I remember an old art teacher of mine (who was a communist) told me that Cuba was actually a functioning socialist state, but I didn't really look into that until now, so thanks again. (BTW I'm going there this winter, lets see if Castro will smoke a cigar with me :D)

Topic:
I can't put it any better than Luis Henrique: If the revolution truly was one of the proletariat, of the exploited and oppressed, then why weren't they able to keep a hold on power? I mean in reality, what started out as a workers revolution went one of two ways:

1. Dictator established in state, who uses Communism and the wellbeing for the people as an excuse for almost anything, from genocide to cocaine-pushing to actually transforming the country into a fascist regime.

2. Bureaucrats take power back again, and revolution was for nothing.

We should be able to uphold a communist state, if the population really supports it...

And can anyone link me to sites that have theories on this? I know Lenin wrote down ideas on how to preserve power immediately after a proletariat revolution and the seizing of power, but I would appreciate if you gave me other P.O.V. on this.

Thanks!

[Comrade Rage]

All previous attempt failed in my estimation because of these reasons.

# Industry was centralized in the hands of the state rather than taken over by unions of workers.

# A 20-year comprehensive operation to remove the bourgeoise from national life had not been undertaken. (Cultural Revolution, Plus, for 20 years)

# After the revolution the Red Guards were disbanded, thus removing a vital check on the power of the leader.

[Rawthentic]

Well, of course. But the questions are, why wasn't the working class able to take and maintain power, and why do these cliques of bureaucrats form and take control?
Isolation of socialist countries, imperialist encirclement, adverse material conditions.

The only way to prevent it is to always struggle for socialist revolution around the world, thus eliminating the conditions that create bureaucratic degeneration.

[Comrade Rage]

I forgot that. Isolation was critical in bringing down socialist countires like those in Africa, as well as Albania, after 1989/1991.

However unusually strong nations like Cuba do hang on.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Dawkinista!@September 26, 2007 10:55 pm
Why have all previous attempts to construct a socialist/communist state failed? I mean no leftist state has ever lived up to its ideals or true values...
Short answer: They have not, in fact, failed.

Long(-ish) answer: Yes, all attempts to implement socialism in the 20th century have had significant shortcomings, and they did not actually succeed in implementing a socialist system for any long period of time. However, they almost always succeeded in vastly improving the quality of life of the people compared to the pre-revolutionary regime; they often achieved impressive gains in such fields as workers' rights and gender equality; and in most cases empowered the working class to a degree not seen in capitalist countries. The Soviet Union, to use only one salient example, was vastly superior to both the Tsarist Empire and present-day Russia.

Do we want to repeat the experiences of the 20th century? No. But to reject everything as a "failure" is to ignore most aspects of life under Marxist-Leninist regimes. We did not "fail" in the 20th century - we had a good first try. We can learn from it so that we repeat its successes but not its mistakes.