A question

[spartan]

Socialism is the transitionary stage between Capitalism and Communism, thus it should be about the preparing of us for the major decentralization and the local council form that Communism will naturally take.

So my question is why have all self described Socialist states in the past done the complete oppositie of this by implementing a command economy, Bureaucracy (A small elite to manage the economy), and nationalization when these are all forms of centralization that have much more in common with State Capitalist war economies then with Socialism and eventually Communism?

How can this highly Bureaucratic centralized form of Socialism lead to decentralized, local council level Communism that we all envision for the future?

[Bright Banana Beard]

So my question is why have all self described Socialist states in the past done the complete oppositie of this by implementing a command economy, Bureaucracy (A small elite to manage the economy), and nationalization when these are all forms of centralization that have much more in common with State Capitalist war economies then with Socialism and eventually Communism?

How can this highly Bureaucratic centralized form of Socialism lead to decentralized, local council level Communism that we all envision for the future?

They do not have industry during the revolution, Russia and China is mainly serf nation without capitalism introduction early, Karl Marx said that it should happen in capitalist country that able to sustain itself as in example of Great Britain, U.S.A. France, and Germany. You clearly need a worker industry with noticable number of steel workers in order to make the socialist state sustainable within itself and not depending on other capitalist state. If you do depend on other state, you need to have monetary system and private property to satifsy them, therefore it cannot be eliminate without destorying the bourgeois on the border.

[Dros]

A strong state is needed to repel imperialism and protect the revolution while developing the means of production and revolutionizing the ideas and beliefs of the masses for Communism.

Socialism takes a long time. That is why the cappie "They said the state was going to wither but it didn't!" argument fails.

[gilhyle]

How can this highly Bureaucratic centralized form of Socialism lead to decentralized, local council level Communism that we all envision for the future?

History is not your playground, you are its plaything. You may wish for and act for whatever you can imagine. What you imagine yourself to be fighting for is close to irrelevant. Events follow the logic of material relations (temporary influence of 'great men' (sic) aside)

If revolutions happen in backward countries other than as preparation for revolution in imperialist countries then they will exist constantly within a counter-revolutionary environment. The repressive capacity of the state will need to be used by the Government to defend the revolution. Bureacrats will always be more efficient at this than workers councils. The price of defending the revolution is to collude in its degeneration.

Life sucks.

[renegadoe]

How can this highly Bureaucratic centralized form of Socialism lead to decentralized, local council level Communism that we all envision for the future?

It cannot. The highly bureaucratic centralized form that we saw in the USSR and its sister socialist states was necessitated by the material conditions of their countries. But history has demonstrated that socialism inevitably leads back to blatant capitalism. And, for revolutionaries in the advanced capitalist world, I'd argue that the concept of socialism is anachronistic - we no longer need a "transitory stage" to build the foundation for communism. Capitalism is completing that task as we type, so our objective as revolutionaries is to start building communism on day one of the revolution.

[spartan]

It cannot. The highly bureaucratic centralized form that we saw in the USSR and its sister socialist states was necessitated by the material conditions of their countries. But history has demonstrated that socialism inevitably leads back to blatant capitalism. And, for revolutionaries in the advanced capitalist world, I'd argue that the concept of socialism is anachronistic - we no longer need a "transitory stage" to build the foundation for communism. Capitalism is completing that task as we type, so our objective as revolutionaries is to start building communism on day one of the revolution.

This is how i am starting to feel.

I just think that Socialism as a transitionary stage to Communism is completely unnecessary if we have a global revolution that leads to the workers gaining control over all or most productive forces in society.

I think that i am becoming an Anarcho-Communist.

[renegadoe]

spartan, I dunno if it's even a matter of being an anarcho-whatever - but just Marxism itself. I mean, the origins of the dispute between Marxists and anarchists in the IWPA has a lot to do with the historical conditions of their era. Marx believed (not understanding spatial resolution of crisis) that capitalism was about to self-destruct in Europe. He thought that because of this, working people would have to create a transitional state to finish developing the forces of production to the point where the super-abundance necessary for communism was materially feasible. However, capital has almost fully developed the productive forces in the advanced capitalist world. So the concept of socialism as the stepping-stone between capitalism and anarchism is basically obsolete, from a contemporary Marxist perspective.

[Dros]

I think that i am becoming an Anarcho-Communist.

I new it the whole time.:D

PS: How are you planning on having a global, simultaneous, successful workers revolution? (When you get a good answer to this question (which you wont) let me know...)

[spartan]

PS: How are you planning on having a global, simultaneous, successful workers revolution? (When you get a good answer to this question (which you wont) let me know...)

When are you planning on having a revolution that actually implements Socialism?

Anyway read renegadoes last post to see why bothering to implement Socialism is pointless seeing how we have now reached the fully developed form of Capitalism that makes Socialism, as a transitonary stage between Capitalism and Communism, pointless.

I say that we really do take on an Internationalist mindset and have a global revolution that will make Socialism completely unnecessary.

[Redmau5]

I new it the whole time.:D

PS: How are you planning on having a global, simultaneous, successful workers revolution? (When you get a good answer to this question (which you wont) let me know...)

Considering that capitalism is globalised already, it's impossible to see how the revolution could be anything other than global.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Considering that capitalism is globalised already, it's impossible to see how the revolution could be anything other than global.

It is still possible for the third-world people to re-examine themselves.

[Atrus]

It is still possible for the third-world people to re-examine themselves.

But the country needs to be able to sustain itself doesnt it?
Third world countries surely don't have a strong enough state for this to succeed?

[La Bicicletta]

I very much agree with renegadoe on this.

Socialism is identified as a form of government in which the proletariat dictates the conditions of capitalism until certain criteria for communism is met. Today, these conditions have already been met! Sticking to a traditional marxist-leninist view on the necessity of a transitional state between the beginning of a revolution and communism is not only no longer relevant; it is also counterproductive. Marxism-leninism, social democracy etc. today are not communist tendencies in that they seek to overhtrow the entire being of capitalism; they only seek to control it for the benefit of the proletariat.

[Dros]

It seems that a lot of people are operating on the idea that socialism is just about developing the means of production. Indeed, that is not the case. Revolutions occur only within certain constrained periods of history: revolutionary situations. Revolutionary situations require that certain conditions of the bourgeios infrastructure (a crisis in the base and in superstructure of society) exist. These conditions are constantly in flux and will never exist around the world globally. This means the notion of "global revolution" at the same time goes away. All revolutionary leftists envision a future global society. Internationalism is centered around working toward that end. However, it is idealist to believe that a simultaneous, global revolution will ever happen (there was another thread in Learning awhile back where I explained why socialism was necessary) and even if you somehow got the orginization for that in place, to think that it would be successful in all places is bordering on dillusional.

A lot of people believed that the Russian Revolution would "go global". The Bolsheviks all imagined that the proletarariat in Europe would rally behind the red flad and cast off the Bourgeoisie. They did not do so (successfully) at that time and the revolution was limited to Russia. At that point, it is necessary to protect the proletocracy from imperialism, transform the masses of people themselves for Communism, and guard against (the otherwise inevitable) restoration of capitalism.


When are you planning on having a revolution that actually implements Socialism?

We figured that one out in 1917. We will have a revolution when there is a revolutionary situation in the US.

Spartan, you are aware (I hope) that this new shift of yours must mean the end of your "we can change through participation in parliamentary democracy" line? Or is this global revolution going to come about when the masses all across the planet go to the polls and select "noone" for who should be head of state.:D

[RNK]

More silly anarchist slander and idealistic notions that one morning we'll wake up and the state will simply not be, and we'll all immediately transform into our brand-spanking new revolutionary mindsets and that'll be the end of it.

Unfortunately scientific processes are just that - processes. They are not instant transformations from one thing to another. A caterpillar crawling its way up a tree branch does not one day have a brain fart and instantaneously sprout wings and fly off. The capitalist mode of production is such that any brutal disfigurement of it would lead to cascading chaos as all previously relied-upon engines for the maintaining of society are suddenly and carelessly wiped away. This is why a transitional period is needed and if you anarchists had bothered reading about it you'd know what that period is and what it isn't.

What it is is a process for the transformation of society. it is a gradual process, piece-by-piece, which tears down the old state and rebuilds the new statelessness. The rich are gradually and inoxerably crushed through heavy taxation, nationalization and confiscation of property, affordable housing is created in order to ensure everyone has homes, industry is ramped up to provide surplus commodities, so on and so forth.

I'll never be able to understand the reasoning behind the belief that all of historical development can be washed away overnight and the subsequent void of any structure will not have society collapse in on itself in chaos.

[spartan]

Spartan, you are aware (I hope) that this new shift of yours must mean the end of your "we can change through participation in parliamentary democracy" line? Or is this global revolution going to come about when the masses all across the planet go to the polls and select "noone" for who should be head of state.:D

Where have i proposed that we should have participation in parliamentary bodies to bring about Socialism?

Sure Chavez shows that it can be done, but the situation in Venezuela is an exception rather than the norm.

Yes i was a Democratic Socialist, but i made it clear that the "Democratic" part meant a belief in Democracy in a Socialist society, not a belief that we can use Democracy in a Capitalist society to get to a Socialist society.

[La Bicicletta]

It seems that a lot of people are operating on the idea that socialism is just about developing the means of production. Indeed, that is not the case. Revolutions occur only within certain constrained periods of history: revolutionary situations. Revolutionary situations require that certain conditions of the bourgeios infrastructure (a crisis in the base and in superstructure of society) exist. These conditions are constantly in flux and will never exist around the world globally. This means the notion of "global revolution" at the same time goes away. All revolutionary leftists envision a future global society. Internationalism is centered around working toward that end. However, it is idealist to believe that a simultaneous, global revolution will ever happen (there was another thread in Learning awhile back where I explained why socialism was necessary) and even if you somehow got the orginization for that in place, to think that it would be successful in all places is bordering on dillusional.

A lot of people believed that the Russian Revolution would "go global". The Bolsheviks all imagined that the proletarariat in Europe would rally behind the red flad and cast off the Bourgeoisie. They did not do so (successfully) at that time and the revolution was limited to Russia. At that point, it is necessary to protect the proletocracy from imperialism, transform the masses of people themselves for Communism, and guard against (the otherwise inevitable) restoration of capitalism.I agree that a revolution must be defended but do not see the need for a state body to defend it. The organisations formed out of necessity to during a revolution steal the bourgeois state's monopoly on violence will be enough to practice the violence necessary in defence of a revolution.

Also, revolutionary situations tend to spread; and to where they do not they can be created. Revolutionary tendencies in one part of the world will inspire the same in others, like we observed in 1968 when the general strike spread its message from France (originally even Paris) to many industrialised countries.