Illus
17th May 2008, 07:17
I have a definite aversion to Communist movements becoming debating societies; I think any proper Communist party is a vanguard for the workers and a party of action. Because of this I prefer debates based on reality and real material conditions, and today I would like to discuss, or rather pose the discussion, or the different types of socialist construction that have actually existed, and defining between them in terms of strengths and weakness.
De Jure Socialism (actually existing socialism)
I would like to credit this form of socialist construction primarily to the Soviet Union, although in varying degree this legal construction of socialism has existed in many other societies, probably more so in China and Vietnam. But primarily it existed in the Soviet Union, which in the normal sense was not a ‘nation’ in the bourgeois sense but a union of councils formulated for direct proletarial rule. As such because the October Revolution was a genuine socialist revolution, and the only one that has ever occurred, the structure which it exhibited institutionalised socialism into the state, society and all institutions of government and organization, society was modelled according to socialism directly. This is largely because although capitalist did indeed infiltrate the USSR since ‘deStalinization’ in 1953 onwards, the counter-revolution was no so swift as in non-de jure socialist constructions elsewhere in the world. Capitalism in the USSR was so subtle at first that it was not so recognizable; this is because all political intercourse was modelled on socialism, and so to institute full capitalism the USSR had to be dissolved and replaced by the Russian Federation and other bourgeois republics.
De Facto Socialism (presumed)
It should be recognized that in societies where socialism is not formalized in the Soviet way, these societies do have varying degrees of de jure socialism in their Constitutions and other institutions, although the socialism in these countries is primarily the result of the policies of the ruling government, rather than the construction of society, it maybe even called ‘socialism by stealth’. That is because unlike the Soviet Union these countries maintain the fabric of their previous bourgeois republican model, and socialism is largely emanating from the policies of the ruling government and party who support socialist politics. De facto socialism largely came about as the post-war settlement, in which the Communist parties in Eastern and Central Europe, with direct Soviet influence, managed to come to power seemingly in opportunistic circumstances, to placate powerful capitalist nations that these nations were in fact liberal bourgeois democracies. These cloaks are usually are primarily tactical and reliant of opportunity, and to avoid the militaries of powerful capitalist countries. The primary role is for first the Communist parties to come to power and consolidate their power, thereupon they will consolidate their socialist construction through reliance on the De Jure socialist ‘core’, the Soviet Union, Cuba and Czechoslovakia being the best examples. After the socialist system is secured, the veil is no longer needed to prevent capitalist intervention.
Many conclusions can be brought from this, but probably the most evident is the fact that De Facto socialism came about through it’s own unique situation and opportunities arising thereupon, and strategy in revolution is always important. What I would like to encourage discussion on is the strength of de facto socialism in the wake of the capitalist counter-revolution of 1989-91. I draw a pretty clear conclusion, that the central reliance of socialism on the Soviet Union made the socialist constructions into a kind of house of cards, dependant on two few a minority leadership that can be justified for organizational reasons. The de facto socialist societies of Eastern and Central Europe posited themselves as too politically weak, and thus themselves become too dependent on the central de jure leadership of the USSR, thus making the counter-revolution of 1989-91 such an absolute collapse.
I put forward that each country should build their de jure socialist model, less centralized and thus stronger politically and economically. I also make the fundamental judgment that inhabiting the old bourgeois republican systems, no matter how much socialist legalism is introduced, is an extremely dangerous position to put socialism in, because it leaves upon the door for the bourgeois to reoccupy that position with the easy they did in the counter-revolution. Socialism MUST be constructed in such a rigorous and revolutionary way that society is completely transformed socially. For all their revolutionary rhetoric, the socialist leaders and parties of the de facto bloc failed to dismantle the old republican systems they inhabited out of fear and paranoia or loosing power.
It should also be noted, that although I considered the USSR to have the ‘strongest’ socialist construction of all the socialist societies, it too was deeply flawed in getting caught up of the status-quo paranoid mentality of defending the gains already won at the expense of revolutionizing society and transcending old bourgeois models which inevitably corrupt socialism. Keep in mind also that I do not intend to generalize at all, these things are depending on myriad situations and different material conditions, which must be taken into account when analysing this.
Conclusion
Keep in mind also mistakes must be learnt from, and in think evasion of the errors of that previous socialist construction will and must be faced without personal offense by Communists if we are to accurately track the movement of the working class and our role as their political vanguard. We must first acknowledge that socialism actually existed in varying degrees in the 'Eastern bloc', this is because a total denial and opportunistic evasion is a fundamentally dishonest and confusing position. Secondly we must accept that it collapsed. And thirdly we must ask yourself why it did. I think the answer must be rigorously sought by Communists lest the bourgeois secure their position further. I'll lay out a few basic points I think should be made:
1. The revolution is not complete after the communists come to power, the revolution is only complete once society has been completely transformed, politically, socially and economically, into socialism.
2. Communists must abandon a paranoiac view when in power, they must understand that rhetoric and useless actions abroad do little. By revolutionizing society at home and offering thus a valid alternative to workers, will they see victories abroad. Victory will not come through emulating the military imperialism of capitalism, as was attempted by the USSR in the Cold War.
3. Centralization of political power is dangerous because it makes the entire socialist construction in some cases dependent on extreme minorities, and even one man. Socialism must be strong and spread all around and not dependent on the will of a minority who is fallible, socialism must transcend the old bourgeois order of things.
4. It was the rigor of the class struggle, both political and economic, that inevitably collapsed the socialist constructions in the 'Eastern bloc', the rigor further of the Cold War turned socialist leaders in stagnant edifices afraid to move forward lest they loose what they already have, this conservative and reactionary tendency was extremely dangerous.
De Jure Socialism (actually existing socialism)
I would like to credit this form of socialist construction primarily to the Soviet Union, although in varying degree this legal construction of socialism has existed in many other societies, probably more so in China and Vietnam. But primarily it existed in the Soviet Union, which in the normal sense was not a ‘nation’ in the bourgeois sense but a union of councils formulated for direct proletarial rule. As such because the October Revolution was a genuine socialist revolution, and the only one that has ever occurred, the structure which it exhibited institutionalised socialism into the state, society and all institutions of government and organization, society was modelled according to socialism directly. This is largely because although capitalist did indeed infiltrate the USSR since ‘deStalinization’ in 1953 onwards, the counter-revolution was no so swift as in non-de jure socialist constructions elsewhere in the world. Capitalism in the USSR was so subtle at first that it was not so recognizable; this is because all political intercourse was modelled on socialism, and so to institute full capitalism the USSR had to be dissolved and replaced by the Russian Federation and other bourgeois republics.
De Facto Socialism (presumed)
It should be recognized that in societies where socialism is not formalized in the Soviet way, these societies do have varying degrees of de jure socialism in their Constitutions and other institutions, although the socialism in these countries is primarily the result of the policies of the ruling government, rather than the construction of society, it maybe even called ‘socialism by stealth’. That is because unlike the Soviet Union these countries maintain the fabric of their previous bourgeois republican model, and socialism is largely emanating from the policies of the ruling government and party who support socialist politics. De facto socialism largely came about as the post-war settlement, in which the Communist parties in Eastern and Central Europe, with direct Soviet influence, managed to come to power seemingly in opportunistic circumstances, to placate powerful capitalist nations that these nations were in fact liberal bourgeois democracies. These cloaks are usually are primarily tactical and reliant of opportunity, and to avoid the militaries of powerful capitalist countries. The primary role is for first the Communist parties to come to power and consolidate their power, thereupon they will consolidate their socialist construction through reliance on the De Jure socialist ‘core’, the Soviet Union, Cuba and Czechoslovakia being the best examples. After the socialist system is secured, the veil is no longer needed to prevent capitalist intervention.
Many conclusions can be brought from this, but probably the most evident is the fact that De Facto socialism came about through it’s own unique situation and opportunities arising thereupon, and strategy in revolution is always important. What I would like to encourage discussion on is the strength of de facto socialism in the wake of the capitalist counter-revolution of 1989-91. I draw a pretty clear conclusion, that the central reliance of socialism on the Soviet Union made the socialist constructions into a kind of house of cards, dependant on two few a minority leadership that can be justified for organizational reasons. The de facto socialist societies of Eastern and Central Europe posited themselves as too politically weak, and thus themselves become too dependent on the central de jure leadership of the USSR, thus making the counter-revolution of 1989-91 such an absolute collapse.
I put forward that each country should build their de jure socialist model, less centralized and thus stronger politically and economically. I also make the fundamental judgment that inhabiting the old bourgeois republican systems, no matter how much socialist legalism is introduced, is an extremely dangerous position to put socialism in, because it leaves upon the door for the bourgeois to reoccupy that position with the easy they did in the counter-revolution. Socialism MUST be constructed in such a rigorous and revolutionary way that society is completely transformed socially. For all their revolutionary rhetoric, the socialist leaders and parties of the de facto bloc failed to dismantle the old republican systems they inhabited out of fear and paranoia or loosing power.
It should also be noted, that although I considered the USSR to have the ‘strongest’ socialist construction of all the socialist societies, it too was deeply flawed in getting caught up of the status-quo paranoid mentality of defending the gains already won at the expense of revolutionizing society and transcending old bourgeois models which inevitably corrupt socialism. Keep in mind also that I do not intend to generalize at all, these things are depending on myriad situations and different material conditions, which must be taken into account when analysing this.
Conclusion
Keep in mind also mistakes must be learnt from, and in think evasion of the errors of that previous socialist construction will and must be faced without personal offense by Communists if we are to accurately track the movement of the working class and our role as their political vanguard. We must first acknowledge that socialism actually existed in varying degrees in the 'Eastern bloc', this is because a total denial and opportunistic evasion is a fundamentally dishonest and confusing position. Secondly we must accept that it collapsed. And thirdly we must ask yourself why it did. I think the answer must be rigorously sought by Communists lest the bourgeois secure their position further. I'll lay out a few basic points I think should be made:
1. The revolution is not complete after the communists come to power, the revolution is only complete once society has been completely transformed, politically, socially and economically, into socialism.
2. Communists must abandon a paranoiac view when in power, they must understand that rhetoric and useless actions abroad do little. By revolutionizing society at home and offering thus a valid alternative to workers, will they see victories abroad. Victory will not come through emulating the military imperialism of capitalism, as was attempted by the USSR in the Cold War.
3. Centralization of political power is dangerous because it makes the entire socialist construction in some cases dependent on extreme minorities, and even one man. Socialism must be strong and spread all around and not dependent on the will of a minority who is fallible, socialism must transcend the old bourgeois order of things.
4. It was the rigor of the class struggle, both political and economic, that inevitably collapsed the socialist constructions in the 'Eastern bloc', the rigor further of the Cold War turned socialist leaders in stagnant edifices afraid to move forward lest they loose what they already have, this conservative and reactionary tendency was extremely dangerous.