kromando33
17th January 2008, 05:12
I think given the persistent baseless attacks upon comrade Stalin by opportunists and Trotskyists, that a defense of his advancement in Marxist science and the gains of his work should be defended from primarily the bourgeois, but also their pseudo-Leftists middle-class allies.
Marx said that the introduction of bourgeois capitalism to places in Africa or the like, where such primitive relations still existed, was a good thing because it brought them into the modern industrial era and increased the proletariat, thus creating the inevitability of class struggle between the '2 camp' paradigm.
One must understand that Marx thought that socialism and capitalism where the only systems to utilize the true social forces of industrial production, but that the bourgeois under capitalism misused this production to waste and overproduce, and needed to oppress the workers to overproduce.
Marxism is practise in the actually existing social conditions, it doesn't look back. Marx observed that only under bourgeois capitalism can socialist revolution happen. This is because under previous feudal conditions classes were many, oppression was split into many classes, knights, lords, vassals, guild masters, apprentices, nobles, peasants, blacksmiths etc, as Marx says a 'manifold degradation of society'. The difference between feudalism and bourgeoisism is that the bourgeois cannot function under feudal conditions, it needs a massive urban worker force (the proletariat) to access that productive force.
Thus the major turn Marx noted in the 19th century was the final overthrow of feudal production and it's replacement by bourgeois production, ie industrial production. So under feudalism production was divided into many ranks and classes, but under bourgeois capitalism it's literally only two classes, the bourgeois and proletarians. Because of this, the proletarians aren't 'confused' by the intricate hierarchy of feudalism, but can see their oppression very clearly, thus the '2 camp paradigm' is formed, and class struggle between the two classes is inevitable because of the simplification of the relations of production.
But alas it's not totally that simple, bourgeois development does indeed control most of the countries of the world, but their is an uneven development when looking between the first and third worlds, so the advent and the differing degrees of class struggle should differ between these worlds based on the growth of the proletariat. This also gives us a good reason as to why 'internationalism' in the sense of 'world revolution' rather than 'national' revolution is a dangerous idea. Because the bourgeois have divided the world into 'nations', then therefore the conflict between different bourgeois national interests, as well as the general historical development of the bourgeois, has meant that some nations have a larger or smaller proletariat and industrial development than others.
Thus in practise 'world revolution' or 'internationalism' denies the Marxist analysis of historical materialism itself, and tries to impose (a perceived) proletarian 'equality' among nations, which in reality does not exist. 'Revolutions' and class struggle will be naturally at different levels depending on the proletarian development in each country. 'Socialism in One Country' then seems only to be a naturally progression from Marxist historical analysis of the bourgeois and proletarians. Each communist movement in each country should be free to adapt their own proletarian struggle in proportion to the level of industrial development and 'proletarianization' of relations in production. Thus 'Socialism in Once Country' comes from reality and a firm Marxist analysis of these material conditions, while 'internationalism' comes from a naive and ultimately false perception of history. Stalin's advancement was based upon a solid analysis of the material conditions of the working class, and the instead of a dictatorial 'international' preaching from a first world country, that each proletarian movement in each country should be free to organize their vanguard actions for their own national proletariat.
Marx said that the introduction of bourgeois capitalism to places in Africa or the like, where such primitive relations still existed, was a good thing because it brought them into the modern industrial era and increased the proletariat, thus creating the inevitability of class struggle between the '2 camp' paradigm.
One must understand that Marx thought that socialism and capitalism where the only systems to utilize the true social forces of industrial production, but that the bourgeois under capitalism misused this production to waste and overproduce, and needed to oppress the workers to overproduce.
Marxism is practise in the actually existing social conditions, it doesn't look back. Marx observed that only under bourgeois capitalism can socialist revolution happen. This is because under previous feudal conditions classes were many, oppression was split into many classes, knights, lords, vassals, guild masters, apprentices, nobles, peasants, blacksmiths etc, as Marx says a 'manifold degradation of society'. The difference between feudalism and bourgeoisism is that the bourgeois cannot function under feudal conditions, it needs a massive urban worker force (the proletariat) to access that productive force.
Thus the major turn Marx noted in the 19th century was the final overthrow of feudal production and it's replacement by bourgeois production, ie industrial production. So under feudalism production was divided into many ranks and classes, but under bourgeois capitalism it's literally only two classes, the bourgeois and proletarians. Because of this, the proletarians aren't 'confused' by the intricate hierarchy of feudalism, but can see their oppression very clearly, thus the '2 camp paradigm' is formed, and class struggle between the two classes is inevitable because of the simplification of the relations of production.
But alas it's not totally that simple, bourgeois development does indeed control most of the countries of the world, but their is an uneven development when looking between the first and third worlds, so the advent and the differing degrees of class struggle should differ between these worlds based on the growth of the proletariat. This also gives us a good reason as to why 'internationalism' in the sense of 'world revolution' rather than 'national' revolution is a dangerous idea. Because the bourgeois have divided the world into 'nations', then therefore the conflict between different bourgeois national interests, as well as the general historical development of the bourgeois, has meant that some nations have a larger or smaller proletariat and industrial development than others.
Thus in practise 'world revolution' or 'internationalism' denies the Marxist analysis of historical materialism itself, and tries to impose (a perceived) proletarian 'equality' among nations, which in reality does not exist. 'Revolutions' and class struggle will be naturally at different levels depending on the proletarian development in each country. 'Socialism in One Country' then seems only to be a naturally progression from Marxist historical analysis of the bourgeois and proletarians. Each communist movement in each country should be free to adapt their own proletarian struggle in proportion to the level of industrial development and 'proletarianization' of relations in production. Thus 'Socialism in Once Country' comes from reality and a firm Marxist analysis of these material conditions, while 'internationalism' comes from a naive and ultimately false perception of history. Stalin's advancement was based upon a solid analysis of the material conditions of the working class, and the instead of a dictatorial 'international' preaching from a first world country, that each proletarian movement in each country should be free to organize their vanguard actions for their own national proletariat.