Originally posted by
[email protected] 29, 2007 02:05 am
The revolutions, which were led by the vanguard and driven by the workers, were a success yes.
But what came after was not a success and was indeed a betrayal of the revolution and the ideals that the working people fought and died for!
How did it betray the revolution? If you talk about the Soviet Union, I would agree; if you talk about Cuba, I would disagree. In order to avoid confusing ourselves, be specific: in what way did the revolution go awry?
Well i dont know about the Socialism part as these "Socialist" states economic ideologies and policies represent a State Capitalism system where the party owns the MOP, the party appointed Bureaucracy controls the MOP whilst the workers operate the MOP.
First, define state capitalism. Tell me how a bureaucracy can be bourgeois without owning private property or stocks or bonds or any of the other things that the bourgeoisie does. In my estimation, Soviet bureaucrats did not own private property, nor did they employ workers; how can they be bourgeois?
This of course means that the workers do not own or control what they operate just like now in our current Bourgeoisie Capitalist system!
If anything the party and Bureaucracy, who claim to represent the workers, simply become the new ruling class and hierarchy replacing the old ruling class.
But not in the same way at all. Property relations were fundamentally changed, were they not? You didn't see Soviet workers selling their labor to survive as in the bourgeois capitalist system, you didn't see private ownership or the like. There were collectivized property relations in the Soviet Union, the problem stemmed from a lack of working class political power. That does not change the economic situation, however, it only causes deformities in the worker state.
Let me ask you this: can a society with capitalist modes of production (as you assert existed in the USSR) have socialistic property relations?
History proves us Anarchists right on that one.
Specify what you mean. Do you mean to say that in Cuba, the working class is "beaten with a stick"? They would respectfully disagree.
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html
The fact remains though that Anarchism as an ideology has not achieved much as it is a global revolutionary ideology, which therefore means that it relies on a global revolution unlike Socialism which is very much at state level, revolution wise, and keeps stupid institutions such as the state and Government which breeds hierarchy and is something that Anarchists would do away with immediatly!, unlike Authoritarian Communism/Socialism which keeps the state, instead of doing away with it like Anarchists would if in the position to do so, and keeps a centralist Government which takes all power for themselves instead of the workers.
First of all, communism of all kinds relies upon worldwide revolution. That is a fact. Communists do not hold that socialism can or should be confined within national borders in the long run (not even Stalinists hold this position anymore as far as I know).
Secondly, you are neglecting the dynamics of class when you denounce hierarchy, state and government itself. Allow Lenin to illustrate this:
Marx chooses the sharpest and clearest way of stating his case against the anarchists: After overthrowing the yoke of the capitalists, should the workers "lay down their arms", or use them against the capitalists in order to crush their resistance? But what is the systematic use of arms by one class against another if not a "transient form" of state?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...rev/ch04.htm#s2 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch04.htm#s2)
Let me ask you this directly: do you not encourage the workers to take power? If so, why should they surrender power as soon as they conquer it?
The state, power, government are all necessary things in a society with class antagonisms. When class conflict subsides, so too will authority; until then, it is a natural result of material conditions.
Indeed there have been many incidents where these "representatives" of the workers have forcefully suppressed workers who took control over, what they operate, the MOP!
Do you mean the bureaucrats in the Soviet Union? They targeted Bolsheviks as much as any other group. They destroyed the vanguard. Your argument rests on the assumption that the Bolsheviks formed the bureaucracy themselves, when in fact it was the bureaucrats (aided by the isolation of Russia) who conquered political power and cemented their position.
Anarchism just like true Communism and Socialism has not achieved anything because no one has successfully implemented either of the ideologies and those who have attempted have always just resorted to the good old centrally planned economy with the party and party appointed Bureaucracy in ownership and control of the MOP respectively whilst the workers, do what they have always done under Capitalism, operate the MOP.
So the October Revolution achieved nothing? The Cuban Revolution resulted in no net gains? I want to make sure you know what you're suggesting by this.
Also, the bureaucracy did not own anything, the state did. The bureaucracy gained from their position, yes, but that does not equal ownership.
Why do the Authoritarians and Vanguardists not allow the workers to own and control what they operate?
Why do you say they do this? The Bolsheviks established worker control by making the Soviets the center of government (that was their whole program). The Cuban communists have abolished private property and exploitation, creating a socialist society with worker democracy (see above link).