Rephrase

[Pogue]

Rephrase of a question I asked before - how do Marx-Leninists respond to the fact that the USSR, China, etc all became authortiarian and didn't create socialism? How comes this does not represent a failure in Marx-Leninist theory, i.e. that it always lead to authoritarian and eventually capitalist states?

[Comrade Stern]

i always wonder the same thing... just assumed that it was just misfortune

[S&Y]

The Soviet Union degenerated because of the material conditions .

You try and build a healthy democratic workers state in a country devastated from civil and world war , so backwards and isolated from the world.

It is common sense , I can't get how you don't understand it.

[Black Sheep]

You try and build a healthy democratic workers state in a country devastated from civil and world war , so backwards and isolated from the world.

It is common sense , I can't get how you don't understand it.
Oh really? Is it that obvious now?

I see some gaps in logical thinking between backwards material conditions and degeneration to authoritarian oligarchies.
Could you please explain it a little more in detail?


That is of course, if we accept that the USSR was as such,according to the first poster's question.

[S&Y]

Oh really? Is it that obvious now?Yes, for anyone with the slightest knowledge of historical materialism.


I see some gaps in logical thinking between backwards material conditions and degeneration to authoritarian oligarchies.Did I talk about authoritarian oligarchies?
I am sure I didn't. So it is your perception that the Soviet Union was an authoritarian oligarchy.

On what basis?



Could you please explain it a little more in detail?There is a certain material basis needed for socialism.
This material basis must be of higher quality than capitalism.

When the capitalists were expropriated in the Soviet Union, there was not material basis for socialism.

And if there is no material basis for socialism or even for building socialism then you cannot expect socialism to be built but a different system, that is a degenerated workers state.

I will give you another analogy.

There is a "revolution" in a slave society called Ancient Rome. Do you expect with the material basis of Ancient Rome , capitalism to be built or something else? Because there was no material basis for capitalism in Ancient Rome, just as there was no material basis for socialism in the USSR.



That is of course, if we accept that the USSR was as such,according to the first poster's question.Didn't you say that it was an oligarchy ? An authoritarian one as well?

I think that it had a socialist economic basis but a bureaucratic political side.

[Q]

Rephrase of a question I asked before - how do Marx-Leninists respond to the fact that the USSR, China, etc all became authortiarian and didn't create socialism? How comes this does not represent a failure in Marx-Leninist theory, i.e. that it always lead to authoritarian and eventually capitalist states?

Short answer: Russia became authoritarian because the revolution became isolated in a backward feudal society.
Long answer and an indepth analysis can be read in Leon Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/).

[Saorsa]

Basically, power became concentrated in the hands of a berucratic caste of Party leaders and state officials, and the working masses became distanced from the administration of the state. Dissent was restricted and opposition repressed beyond anything necessary to safeguard the revolution, and without the workers being able to exercise real contro of the state, various institutions, the economy and so on it eventually degenerated and the buerucratic elite restored capitalism.

This was the first time constructing socialism had ever been tried, so its hardly surprising a great number of mistakes were made. The USSR was threatened both from within and without, and measures had to be taken to defend the revolution from it's enemies, who were very real and very dangerous. Despite it's flaws, the USSR under Stalin achieved huge things, and many of these were retained even under Krushchev and his ilk.

In the construction of future socialist societies, we'll have to be very careful to ensure that power isn't concentrated in the hands of a small number of buerucrats, but is instead place firmly in the hands of the working class through direct democratic organs of state power. Power has to flow from the bottom up.

I don't buy the argument that this degeneration happened because of "isolation", I think that's a very defeatist way of looking at it. It means that revolutionaries who have seized power in a single country just can't win. If they start building a socialist system, Trotskyists attack them for building socialism in one country. If they don't start building full-scale socialism immediately, and instead deal with the democratic, anti-feudal and and anti-imperialist tasks that have to be accomplished first, Trotskyists attack them as stagists and sellouts who have betrayed the revolution. It's an ultra-critical approach that means revolutionary governments can't win in your books.

If you argue that a revolution in a single country (which will likely be an underdeveloped Third World country) is doomed to fail due to isolation, what's the point in seizing power in the first place? And do you really think that revolutionaries should hold off from seizing power in a signle country, and wait for the imaginary day when there will be a near simultaneous world revolution?

It's a ridiculous line.

[BobKKKindle$]

If they start building a socialist system, Trotskyists attack them for building socialism in one country.

This is incorrect, because the Left Opposition advocated a program of planned industrialization following the death of Lenin, whereas Stalin argued that the NEP should be allowed to continue, despite the urgent need to build up a strong industrial base.

[Hit The North]

If you argue that a revolution in a single country (which will likely be an underdeveloped Third World country) is doomed to fail due to isolation, what's the point in seizing power in the first place? And do you really think that revolutionaries should hold off from seizing power in a signle country, and wait for the imaginary day when there will be a near simultaneous world revolution?

It's a ridiculous line.

It's only ridiculous if you accept the assumption implicit in the Socialism-in-one-country thesis that revolutions are national phenomena. On the contrary, the international nature of capitalist crisis which is the only objective condition that makes socialist revolution viable, ensures that the revolutionary movement, although uneven, will also be international.

[Black Sheep]

There is a certain material basis needed for socialism.
This material basis must be of higher quality than capitalism.
When the capitalists were expropriated in the Soviet Union, there was not material basis for socialism.

And what is that material basis?I mean specifically,what does it refer to?
Please give me a detailed answer and/or link me, because i've yet to understand this.

[Pogue]

Basically, power became concentrated in the hands of a berucratic caste of Party leaders and state officials, and the working masses became distanced from the administration of the state. Dissent was restricted and opposition repressed beyond anything necessary to safeguard the revolution, and without the workers being able to exercise real contro of the state, various institutions, the economy and so on it eventually degenerated and the buerucratic elite restored capitalism.

This was the first time constructing socialism had ever been tried, so its hardly surprising a great number of mistakes were made. The USSR was threatened both from within and without, and measures had to be taken to defend the revolution from it's enemies, who were very real and very dangerous. Despite it's flaws, the USSR under Stalin achieved huge things, and many of these were retained even under Krushchev and his ilk.

In the construction of future socialist societies, we'll have to be very careful to ensure that power isn't concentrated in the hands of a small number of buerucrats, but is instead place firmly in the hands of the working class through direct democratic organs of state power. Power has to flow from the bottom up.

I don't buy the argument that this degeneration happened because of "isolation", I think that's a very defeatist way of looking at it. It means that revolutionaries who have seized power in a single country just can't win. If they start building a socialist system, Trotskyists attack them for building socialism in one country. If they don't start building full-scale socialism immediately, and instead deal with the democratic, anti-feudal and and anti-imperialist tasks that have to be accomplished first, Trotskyists attack them as stagists and sellouts who have betrayed the revolution. It's an ultra-critical approach that means revolutionary governments can't win in your books.

If you argue that a revolution in a single country (which will likely be an underdeveloped Third World country) is doomed to fail due to isolation, what's the point in seizing power in the first place? And do you really think that revolutionaries should hold off from seizing power in a signle country, and wait for the imaginary day when there will be a near simultaneous world revolution?

It's a ridiculous line.

Best answer, apart from the Trot-bashing bit.

But how comes *everytime* a party has lead the revolution, this party has become authoritarian and restored capitailsm? USSR, China, Vietnam, etc? (Cuba could be said to be an exception because its not incredibly authoritarian and is not neo-liberal, more strong social democratic). I have never been fully supportive of Marx-Leninism because I always thought the whole vanguard idea was just begging for an authoritarian dictatorship which would practice state capitalism before moving back to neo-liberalism.

Is this proof of the failure of the idea of revolution/socialism in one country, a failure of a vanguard seizing power, a failure of the dictatorship of the proletariat? A failure of the whole theory of Marx-Leninism? Or is it just that capitalism crushed these revolutions, or these countries were not ready for revolution, etc?

I'm not trolling because I'd like to be able to fully support Marx-Leninism, its just at the moment I think it is doomed to fail as a theory. Such failures are basically what have eld me towards Anarchism, and the whole vanguard seizing power is whats made me less inclined to Trotskyism. Although the calls for more democracy and world revolution are what make Trotskyism better, I still doubt the vanguard. Plus I'm not comfortable with the suppresion at Kronstadt which Trotsky took part in. I know thats a failure of trotsky not Trotskyism but it makes me less willing to label myself a Trotskyist. Would any Trots like to help me clear up any misunderstandings or reassure/convince me of Trotskyism?

At the moment my policy is that if Marx-Leninists groups seized power I'd support them but warn agaisnt authoritarianism and try to be part of that movement arguing from a libertarian socialist perspective.

So yeh, all help is appreciated, cheers comrades.

[mikelepore]

My view is that it has nothing to do with the war or economic backwardness. It's because socialism can only be adopted in a society that already has a political republic, the people elect the lawmakers, government is through numerous political parties, and freedom of speech and the press are expected. If the population isn't already rehearsed at operating a political democracy, they won't know how to run an economic democracy either. Unaccustomed to the alternative, the population will think that the new system needs to be commanded by leaders, political and economic administrations packed with appointees, unusual ideas censored, secret police employed.

[S&Y]

My view is that it has nothing to do with the war or economic backwardness. It's because socialism can only be adopted in a society that already has a political republic, the people elect the lawmakers, government is through numerous political parties, and freedom of speech and the press are expected. If the population isn't already rehearsed at operating a political democracy, they won't know how to run an economic democracy either. Unaccustomed to the alternative, the population will think that the new system needs to be commanded by leaders, political and economic administrations packed with appointees, unusual ideas censored, secret police employed.



This is incorporated in the term backwardness comrade.


Also mauroprovatos I thought my answer was clear enough.

If you want more details read the revolution betrayed by Trotsky