Socialist Autocracy/monarchy

[spartan]

So i was thinking of all these past "Socialist" states and there "strong man" leaders, like Stalin and Brezhnev, and un-Democratic methods of leadership (Like the DPRK and its father and son succession) and i was thinking "Is it possible for a country run by an Autocrat/monarch to have a Socialist economic system?".

So what do you think?

Is it possible to have a country, which is run by an Autocrat, with a Socialist economy thus, in effect, making it a Socialist Autocracy?

NOTE: By Socialism i mean state ownership of everything not worker.

[lvleph]

Isn't that Feudalism?

[Ismail]

No, Socialism is not possible if there is literally one leader in control of pretty much everything.

Since neither Stalin or Brezhnev (and I hate Brezhnev) were autocrats, this question does not apply to them. Support of their actions by the Politburo =/= autocracy.


NOTE: By Socialism i mean state ownership of everything not worker.Socialism isn't "Let the state run everything", that by itself is state capitalism. Socialism is determined based on culture, actual economic conditions (not just "How much does government control x"), how government is organized, etc.

Taken from "AN OUTLINE OF THE PEOPLE'S SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA", 1978:


On Taxes:

In the structure and application of its whole policy of taxation on the population, the Party of Labour of Albania has always been aware that taxation is a temporary historical category. Therefore, step by step and with great care, it prepared the necessary conditions for eliminating it. On November 8, 19.69, a measure of great importance was taken for the total abolition of the system of direct taxation on the population.

This measure is connected with the extension of the sphere of the establishment of socialist
relations in production and with the rapid development of the productive forces of the country. Thus
the specific weight of taxes and levies from the population in the total income of the state budget
during the 1945-46 financial year (the first year after liberation) was 92 per cent; in 1950 it fell to
12.6 per cent; in 1960 it fell ta 2.7 per cent and in 1969 to 0.1 per cent.

As can be seen, the process of abolishing taxes and levies from the population was not carried out
all at once, but they were abolished step by step, parallel with the development of the socialist
sector of the economy, with the elimination of the economic basis of taxation, and with the change
in the class structure in our country. This constitutes a major victory achieved by our people and is a
brilliant example of the consistent implementation by our Party of Labour of its general line for the
construction of socialist society and constant improvement of the standard of living of the people.

On work:

The principal laws dealing with the work and life of the working people, with employment,
conditions of work, wages, and social insurance, are drawn up after having solicited the opinions of
the workers and trade unions. This has made it possible to divest the labour laws of unnecessary
complicated formulations and make them simple, clear, and understandable to the masses, thus
enabling them to check up on their application in practice.

The workers are guaranteed an 8-hour workday by law. For certain categories of workers engaged
in difficult jobs the working day is reduced to 7, 6, or'5 hours, without any reduction in wages.
Overtime work is not allowed except in special cases.

In the conditions of the further revolutionization of the school, in order to make it easier for the
workers to attend courses while continuing with their jobs, the hours of work for those who are
studying, are reduced and supplementary leave with full pay is granted them to prepare for and sit
their examinations. This supplementary leave is from three to six hours a week for part-time school
attendance, from 15 to 25 days a year for sitting examinations, and up to 0 days a year for taking
final examinations.

On wages:

On this question the Party of Labour of Albania has always proceeded from the teachings of
Lenin who stressed that «the corruptive influence of high wages is indisputable both on the Soviet
State Power as well as on the masses of the workers. . . The principles of the Paris Commune and
every proletarian State Power demand that the wage of an employee be no higher than the wage of a good worker, they demand that career seeking be fought against with actions and not with words». In the implementation of this great teaching of V. I. Lenin, in accordance with the concrete
conditions of the development of and the socialist construction in Albania, the Party of Labour of
Albania step by step has continually taken measures to narrow the ratio between the medium wages
of the workers and the higher wages of the employees. Nine years ago, on April 29, 1976, in the
Declaration of the Central Committee of the Party and the Government it was stressed that the
establishment of correct proportions between the wages of the workers and the employees and
between the wages of categories of employees is a measure of principled importance which blocks
the road to bourgeois degeneration, career seeking and many other evils.

Following the Declaration, the differences between lower and higher wages in Albania reached the ratio of 1 to 2.5. Now following the latest decision, this ratio is narrowed even further. Today in Albania the ratio between the average wages of workers and the salary of the director of the same enterprise is 1 : 1.7; that between the average wages of the workers in general and the salary of the director in the Ministry is about 1:2; that between the lowest and highest wages of the workers within the same branch is about 1:1.5-1.65 etc. These ratios are set by law.

On government:

The People's Socialist Republic of Albania is the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which
expresses and defends the interests of all the workers. The People's Socialist Republic of Albania is
based on the unity of the people and has at its roots the alliance of the working class with the
cooperative peasantry under the leadership of the working class. The People's Socialist Republic of Albania uninterruptedly carries forward the revolution adhering to the class struggle and it has the aim of ensuring the final triumph of the socialist road over the capitalist road and achieving the complete construction of socialism and communism. In the People's Socialist Republic of Albania the entire state power emanates from and belongs to the people. The working class, the cooperative peasantry and other workers exercise their power through their representative organs and directly.

The representative workers are elected by the people by general, equal, direct and secret ballot.
The electors have the right to recall their representative at any time when he has lost the political
trust of the masses or when he fails to fulfill the tasks assigned to him or when he acts contrary to
the law.

- The working class, as the leading class of our society, as well as the masses of the other workers
exercise direct organized control over the activity of the State organs, of the economic and social
organizations and their workers in order to defend the achievements of the revolution and to
consolidate the socialist order.

The representative organs are of the greatest importance in the system of state organs. These organs
consisting of the People's Assembly at the center and the People's Councils at the base, are the only
organs which realize the State Power in the country. They make up the whole foundations of the
state apparatus, all the other state organs depend upon and render account to .them.
The representative organs are real work institutions, legislative and at the same time, executive. Just
as Marx and Lenin instructed on the representative institutions, which the proletariat sets up when it
becomes the ruling class, the representative institutions in Albania are made up of people who
themselves work, carry out their own decisions, supervise what is carried out and render direct
account to their electors. The highest representative organ of our country is the People's Assembly, which bears the sovereignty of the nation and of the state, and exercises all the sovereign rights on the basis of the Constitution. Representatives to the People's Assembly are elected every four years and carry out their activity in sessions.

During the time when the People's Assembly is not in session, the high state functions are exercised
in its name by the Presidium of the People's Assembly within the limits of the competences left to it
by the Constitution. The Presidium of the People's Assembly is also the leading collegial organ of
the State. The Presidium is the organ of the People's Assembly itself, elected by the latter and
renders account to it for all its activity.

Part of the representative organs are also the People's Councils, which exercise their functions as
organs of State Power in their respective territorial-administrative units. The People's Councils are
elected every three years and enjoy important competences in all matters of socialist construction
within the units where they exercise their activity. The administrative functions are a special form of our state activity. The Council of Ministers is the highest organ of our State administration whereas at the base this function is fulfilled by the Executive Committees of the People's Councils. These organs are elected by the representative organs and render account to them; the Council of Ministers by the People's Assembly and the Executive Committees by the People's Councils.

The People's Courts engage in. meting out justice. Through their activity, they exert a major
educational influence not only on the persons brought before court but also on all others.
Finally, the organs of the Attorney General are the fourth kind of our state organs. They handle the
supervision on the accurate implementation of the law by every one, by the State organs, social
organs or citizens. But, although each of these state organs has its own characteristics and, on this basis, the corresponding competences, it is important to mention that all these organs are in close connection and permanent collaboration among them.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:53 pm
So i was thinking of all these past "Socialist" states and there "strong man" leaders, like Stalin and Brezhnev, and un-Democratic methods of leadership (Like the DPRK and its father and son succession) and i was thinking "Is it possible for a country run by an Autocrat/monarch to have a Socialist economic system?".

So what do you think?

Is it possible to have a country, which is run by an Autocrat, with a Socialist economy thus, in effect, making it a Socialist Autocracy?

NOTE: By Socialism i mean state ownership of everything not worker.
Just look at the Incan Empire, or Pharaonic Egypt.

Both these entities had a virtual state monopoly on food production, irrigation, tool production, and a centralised distribution of nutrients. Both these entities where comparatively better of materially than other cultures (the average Incan subject probably had better health than most 16th-century Europeans, at least until the latter arrived).

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by spartan+December 03, 2007 05:53 pm--> (spartan @ December 03, 2007 05:53 pm) "Is it possible for a country run by an Autocrat/monarch to have a Socialist economic system?". [/b]
In a word, no.


spartan
Is it possible to have a country, which is run by an Autocrat, with a Socialist economy thus, in effect, making it a Socialist Autocracy?

NOTE: By Socialism i mean state ownership of everything not worker.
The state is always the tool of one class or another. There is no such thing as a classless state, and saying that the state owns the means of production leaves a big question unanswered: Who controls the state?

Socialism exists when the state owns the means of production and the working class controls the state. Therefore it is incompatible with autocracy, because the state cannot be controlled by the working class and by an autocrat at the same time.

[Dimentio]

What is your definition of socialism.

If it is A state that guarantees a basic welfare to everyone, then well yes.

If it is equality, then no.

But marxism-leninism does not feel like equality either. There is the people, where class antagonisms should be defeated, and then a caste of interpretators unified in the vanguard, which should lead the enthusiastic people onward towards the utopian paradise somewhere in the future.

[spartan]

What is your definition of socialism.
My definition is summed up pretty well by Edric O in his last post:

Socialism exists when the state owns the means of production and the working class controls the state.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:35 pm
Isn't that Feudalism?
i thought it was stalinism. :blink: :rolleyes:

[lvleph]

lol

[Red Scare]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:35 am
Isn't that Feudalism?
Feudalism still has some of the parts of Capitalism embedded in it because you can view the Lords and such as Landowners and Capitalists, because they effectively had a Capitalist monopoly of all aspects of life. There was also smaller Capitalism in Feudal society with merchants and traders such as Blacksmiths.

[MarxSchmarx]

Socialism isn't "Let the state run everything", that by itself is state capitalism. Socialism is determined based on culture, actual economic conditions (not just "How much does government control x"), how government is organized, etc.

Echoing Mr. Die, I disagree that socialism implies state ownership.

Be that as it may, taking Spartan's/Edric's definition, socialist autocracy is possible only if the working class is composed of one person.

[which doctor]

The Inkan empire practiced a type of "vertical socialism" that was surprisingly successful and produced quite the surplus of goods.

[KC]

Feudalism still has some of the parts of Capitalism embedded in it because you can view the Lords and such as Landowners and Capitalists, because they effectively had a Capitalist monopoly of all aspects of life. There was also smaller Capitalism in Feudal society with merchants and traders such as Blacksmiths.

No they didn't. Feudalism didn't have capitalist relations until the development of the nascent bourgeoisie and merchant capital. It had nothing to do with Lords.

[DrFreeman09]

Socialism isn't "Let the state run everything", that by itself is state capitalism. Socialism is determined based on culture, actual economic conditions (not just "How much does government control x"), how government is organized, etc.

Max Shachtman gave these two qualifiers to socialism that I think are quite accurate:

1. Is society tending toward equality or inequality?

2. Is the power of the state increasing or decreasing?

Shachtman argued that if society was tending toward equality and state power was decreasing, then you had socialism. I myself would add a third qualifier and that is: do the workers rule?

Workers' rule, I believe, will necessarily lead to the other two qualifiers, but equality can increase and state power can decrease without workers' rule (i.e. Sweden, Norway). Of course without workers' rule, society tending toward equality and a dwindling state will only progress to a certain extent because the rule of capital will still apply and the bourgeoisie as a class will never eliminate the rule of capital (as they thrive on it).

So, in short, no. Autocracy can never be socialism.

1. The workers as a class must rule.

2. Society must be tending toward equality.

3. State power must eventually begin to decrease (as a result of equality).

The second two qualifiers won't happen without genuine workers' rule, and autocracy is not genuine workers' rule.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 04, 2007 09:02 pm
Feudalism still has some of the parts of Capitalism embedded in it because you can view the Lords and such as Landowners and Capitalists, because they effectively had a Capitalist monopoly of all aspects of life.
Not so. Landowners do not expand capital, which is a necessary pre-requisite of capitalism.


There was also smaller Capitalism in Feudal society with merchants

Nope. Merchants within feudal societies do not make for capitalism. Capitalism is a system in which society is ruled by capitalists, through accumulation of capital. A feudal society is ruled by a landed, non-capitalist oligarchy by definition.


and traders such as Blacksmiths.

Those would be petty-bourgeois. Their logic is, was, and has alway been, C -> M -> C, never M -> C -> M'.

Your reasoning seems to be teleological, as if there were "seeds" of future capitalism embedded in feudalism. As such, capitalism becomes hypostasised, as something eternal, and is explained by itself (why did Europe become capitalist? because it was already partially capitalist!)

Luís Henrique