Why history matters

[graffic]

Present day Communists, those that are still going despite the Eastern European revolutions in 1989, the triumph of Western liberal capitalism over communism and what Fukuyuma calls the "end of history", they often say that the USSR was not "real communism", that North Korea is not "real communism" and that any other regime that sees itself as socialist is perhaps not "socialist".

The problem with this is that capitalists can use the same argument and say that past capitalist crimes or faults were not true conservatism or classical liberalism or that the crimes of present day capitalists are not representative of conservative ideology, and so on.

The Russian revolution was the closest thing to the Marx and Engels Manifesto, and although the USSR's egalitarian style has never been matched by any western liberal democracy, the tyranny was wrong.

[Blake's Baby]

But, even if capitalists claim that things weren't 'true' liberalism, they're still capitalism, and what communists seek to overthrow is capitalism. It's all capitalism, liberal, monopolistic, private or state-controlled. The form of capitalist exploitation doesn't matter, and even how 'nice' it is doesn't matter. It's still exploitation and it's still wrong. If there's classes (especially, a working class, the producer-class under capitalism), wages, and government (ie, states), then, yup, it's capitalism and we'll abolish it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Fukuyuma calls the "end of history

Fukuyuma's a moron, and the triumphalism of the 90's is being proven wrong every day.

[Bud Struggle]

The Russian revolution was the closest thing to the Marx and Engels Manifesto, and although the USSR's egalitarian style has never been matched by any western liberal democracy, the tyranny was wrong.

But isn't that what Communism looks like when tried on any grand scale in the real world? This and Maoism. It's the reason that may people including myself are apprehensive.

Why should a worker who has it reasonably decent here in the USA (for example) think some sort of Revolution might being things a lot better--when Revolutions past haven't given worker what they have now under Capitalist Democracy?

[Blake's Baby]

The American Revolution did. In fact, it gave Americans Capitalist Democracy. It's also one of those revolutions that disproves the idea that 'all revolutions are bound to eat their young'. It didn't, so, all revolutions are not bound to eat their young, so a successful revolution is possible. Also, you know very well that a good number of us think that what you object to is the counter-Revolution not the Revolution itself. By our reckoning, Stalin is one of yours (a nationalist and capitalist), and was the executioner of the Revolution.

[¿Que?]

All struggles against capital should be honored and celebrated, even the imperfect ones. People know what they want, but more importantly, they know what they don't want, and when a revolution occurs, it's the latter that's at the forefront.

[RGacky3]

But isn't that what Communism looks like when tried on any grand scale in the real world? This and Maoism. It's the reason that may people including myself are apprehensive.

Nope its not, if it was you'd have to make an inherent link between the tyranny and the socialism, a link thats never been made because it does'nt exist.

[AnthArmo]

North Korea boldy proclaims itself the "People's Democratic Republic of Korea"

I suppose, then, it would be fallacious of us to say that they are lying. Because, Y'know, supporters of Autocracy could point to previous failed examples of autocratic rule and proclaim "but that's not real autocracy!"

So then I suppose North Korea is a Democracy then! Never mind the fact that the system of governance in North Korea bears absolutely no resembleance to the actual ideas of Democracy, or to anything actually suggested by Democrats. Nope, its a Democracy, because they say so.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Did these things come out of the radical movement? Yes. Were they socialist? No.

The problem with this is that capitalists can use the same argument and say that past capitalist crimes or faults were not true conservatism or classical liberalism or that the crimes of present day capitalists are not representative of conservative ideology, and so on.

Well they would do this against criticisms regardless of what radicals today say about failed attempts at socialism in the past. The difference is that the bourgeois was able to get what it wanted - it was able to create the conditions for private business to flourish and create governments that could protect and ensure their continued rule. The Bolsheviks before Stalin were pretty clear in saying that they were taking emergency measures to try and keep that revolution going until workers in other countries could overthrow capitalism. The group that Stalin represented had a different path they thought could create the conditions in Russia that would allow socialism and imo, that path lead straight away from socialism and any kind of worker's power. Other revolutions after Spain, generally followed the model that the Stalinist set up - and later Maoists as well: nationalize and build up industry (of course this came on the backs of the working class and helped to lead to a new class to rule those societies).

So in the case of capitalism, you have the ruling class taking over the boat and navigating it up a small creek. Then when they get stuck, they don't blame it on the destination, navigation, or the size of the boat, they say, if only the deck-chairs had been arranged differently, the boat would have had clear sailing.

The radical movement, on the other hand tried to sail a boat; got caught in a current; made mistakes trying to correct the drift of the ship; ended up a creek and stuck anyway; and then Stalin came along and said, no this creek is where we should be, let's make the sailors get out and dig the creek deeper so we can make a "lake in one creek".

So the capitalists have had all the chances in the world to rearrange society to try and prevent the problems of capitalism (economic busts, war, etc) and every generation they declare "it's all fixed" right before the next big war (the "War to end all wars" and to "save democracy" was soon followed by Fascism and WWII, for example) or economic bust (see Fukuyuma or the economists in the 50s or 20s that declared an end to the boom-bust cycle). Despite this, they still have the system they wanted - private property is well protected (more than human life) and business can control huge amounts of labor and resources. The main reason is that capitalism has not interest in "fixing" these kinds of problems because economic exploitation and imperialist competition are features of that system. Saying that it's possible to have capitalism but not have inequality, economic uncertainty, and oppression, is like saying that this rundown-house would no longer be on a slant if only it wasn't attached to a crooked foundation!

Socialism (i.e. worker's power), on the other hand, never took root except for some brief instances. It would be one thing if the USSR had 10 years of total democratic control over government and the economy by the working class and then worker's rule created some kind of horrible oppression - then the analogy with what the capitalists claim would be correct.

[graffic]

By the way I thin Fukuyama talks absolute bollocks. And I agree El Bagonneta that all struggles against capital should be celebrated.

However, my problem with your analysis JH is that you attempt to paint all "capitalists" with the same brush. Many people who support the capitalist mode of production don't self identify as a "capitalist. I've mentioned this in a thread before: Many people just don't give a shit about ideology. Not every conservative wants to grind the poor down into impoverishment. Many don't know the reality of capital (Engels: false consciousness), and many even if they do know, don't care enough to do anything about it. I believe bread and circus keeps many people satisfied.

Secondly, the failure of a classless society raises legitimate points about what we actually know about human nature. Edmund Burke was a gloomy bastard but people like him are not completely wrong. One of the problems with radicals is that they are perfectionists. It could be part of human nature to enjoy being the contrarian. Its quite obvious that, looking at the huge internal splits among the radical left, people love being the independent contrarian. And thats one of the reasons communism lead to tyranny, because people disagreed and rebelled regardless of their social and economic status

[Jimmie Higgins]

An induvidual capitalist might be the most awesome and kind person in the world, but that doesn't change the nature of the system which is our labor makes their money.

[automattick]

The problem with this is that capitalists can use the same argument and say that past capitalist crimes or faults were not true conservatism or classical liberalism or that the crimes of present day capitalists are not representative of conservative ideology, and so on.

The Russian revolution was the closest thing to the Marx and Engels Manifesto, and although the USSR's egalitarian style has never been matched by any western liberal democracy, the tyranny was wrong.

Yes, to reiterate what Blake had stated above, the USSR and China were state capitalist societies. Capital takes many faces: nationalism, fascism, state capitalism, etc. Marx laid out some basic requirements in Das Kapital in order to transcend capital (which is a social relation, not a "thing" meaning that it is mediated by everyone who exchanges and participates in the labor market). From my knowledge, Russia only substituted one type of bourgeoisie for another.

This has been something I've been arguing on other threads, and it is that a "party" can serve the same function as a less-formally arranged bourgeoisie can. Marx didn't want to have surplus value/profit to simply be siphoned-off by less harmful means, because that entirely ignores the fact that surplus value extraction is not harmful to begin with. As I previously mentioned, capital is not simply money--it is you and me. We're capital every time we go to work for a boss. We're engaging with capital when we buy or sell. To assume then that a place like Soviet Russia or China was absent of these relations is patently false: there economies did compete in the global commodities market.

Some people, out of their impatience and lack of reading Marx's critique of political economy often bemoan this position (which is in the minority). They want the grandeur, they see themselves as romanticized revolutionaries, educating the masses who have yet to be enlightened. These are bourgeois fantasies and are unfortunately pervasive. One must keep in mind that Marx labored for over 50 years trying to demystify the world of the bourgeoisie and the economic foundation which supports them--capitalism. In the end, he determined that the potential for any material change in the world would come from the direct experiences of the work him/herself, only they could unleash the material forces to destroy and create the capitalist order. All previous attempts--while noble, I might add--have unfortunately fallen short of their revolutionary potential precisely because of the issue of consciousness and a compromised state of affairs.

[Dean]

The Russian revolution was the closest thing to the Marx and Engels Manifesto, and although the USSR's egalitarian style has never been matched by any western liberal democracy, the tyranny was wrong.

No it wasn't, for the simple fact that the USSR was not a decentralized system of worker management of the workplace and society. Any semblance of such organization was marginal and put down at Kronstadt.

In fact, the "soviet" was a lie itself, since it meant "worker collective" which didn't really define the management system of the society - not unlike the lie of representative democracy or democracy in the context of a capitalist system in general.

The fact is that democracy, socialism, communism and capitalism are terms with meanings:

-We live in a capitalist society because
the system of economic management is defined by profiteering

-We don't live in a communist society because
society is not organized along managerial worker collectives

-We don't live in a socialist society because
society is not managed by the workers or the working class

-We don't live in any kind of democracy because
society is not managed, directed or organizationally beholden to the majority.

The thing is, these aren't complicated terms. Any kid ought to be able to define them, and any critical analysis of social organization will quickly indicate what I did above.

[Bud Struggle]

The fact is that democracy, socialism, communism and capitalism are terms with meanings:

-We live in a capitalist society because
the system of economic management is defined by profiteering

-We don't live in a communist society because
society is not organized along managerial worker collectives

-We don't live in a socialist society because
society is not managed by the workers or the working class

-We don't live in any kind of democracy because
society is not managed, directed or organizationally beholden to the majority.

The thing is, these aren't complicated terms. Any kid ought to be able to define them, and any critical analysis of social organization will quickly indicate what I did above.

But Dean--all these things may have such meaning in an idealist setting--but it doesn't mean they exist or can exist in the real world. Same for angels and saints and devils and fairies. You can argue that some mythical creature is not a dwarf but and elf and back again--but without actualy existance it becomes pointless.

The problem that some of us "non believers" in Communism have is that for the most part after the Revolutions come and go what is left in the real world looks very little like the ideal of Communism--it's not troubling to some, but for some of us the devil we know is better than the devil we don't.

[Dean]

But Dean--all these things may have such meaning in an idealist setting--but it doesn't mean they exist or can exist in the real world. Same for angels and saints and devils and fairies. You can argue that some mythical creature is not a dwarf but and elf and back again--but without actualy existance it becomes pointless.

Unfortunately for you, however, these things do exist. In particular capitalism.

What is dangerous is the myth of democracy, which is basically a compromise for the capitalist class to make pretense that we have some semblance of popular control over our lives (that is to say, pretense that we live in a socialist paradigm).

The problem that some of us "non believers" in Communism have is that for the most part after the Revolutions come and go what is left in the real world looks very little like the ideal of Communism--it's not troubling to some, but for some of us the devil we know is better than the devil we don't.

You should reject democracy, too, and the open society; in fact, beyond the trinkets and goods, society hardly looks different from the feudal aristocracies of the past.

[RGacky3]

The problem that some of us "non believers" in Communism have is that for the most part after the Revolutions come and go what is left in the real world looks very little like the ideal of Communism--it's not troubling to some, but for some of us the devil we know is better than the devil we don't.

OK, that means, that for onlookers, Democracy = Slavery for hundreds of years, right? Its a direct corrolation. America was a democratic republic, and it had slaves, thus Democracy in the real world = Slavery.

People that call themselves Catholic priests touch Children, Thus when catholic prinicples are used in the real world it leads to touching children. Do you get the idiocy of your argument?

if you can actually make a connection between socialization and what you don't like then make it.

[Bud Struggle]

Unfortunately for you, however, these things do exist. In particular capitalism.

Yes it does--and in a very imperfect state. But Capitalism never makes the claim that everyone will be treated equally. Communism does--and it's failed at that.

What is dangerous is the myth of democracy, which is basically a compromise for the capitalist class to make pretense that we have some semblance of popular control over our lives (that is to say, pretense that we live in a socialist paradigm).

See, I disagree there. In demoracy people have the right and the voice and the ability to take control of everything and anything they want. And true--they don't. They don't even come close. But they have the opportunity--and I think that opportunity will be used EXACTLY the same way under Communism or Anarchism. Some Handsome Johnny will steal away hearts and votes and become another Uncle Joe.

You should reject democracy, too, and the open society; in fact, beyond the trinkets and goods, society hardly looks different from the feudal aristocracies of the past.

If there is one thing that I'm learning from RevLeft--is that some people take it upon themselves to gain power and rule and most rather be ruled. I've done it a bit (a small bit in my life) I've seen others want more. And I've seen most just be thankful for what they are given.

I'm not saying it is good, it isn't. But there is a human nature element to it all. I wish I was wrong about this--but being a businessperson I meet high rollers and workers--and I think I see a real difference in how these people take on life. And there's a difference. RevLeft has given me a bit of perspective on all of this.

[Blake's Baby]

... Capitalism never makes the claim that everyone will be treated equally. Communism does--and it's failed at that...

Yes it did, Bud. The American Constitution and the principles of the French Republic, even the declarations of the English radicals at the time of the Civil Wars and the ensuing shenanigans. The bourgeoisie constantly claimed the universality of its message - liberty, equality and fraternity. They held this truth to be self evident, that all men were created equal. The lowliest 'he' in the state had the same rights as the mightiest 'he'.

However the problem with capitalism, eminently manifest over the last 400 years or so, is that rich are the powerful and their 'liberty equality and fraternity' in the end only extends as far as the others who are rich and powerful the rest of us can go hang (or starve).

Communism, however has demonstrated precisely never that it can't work. I agree it didn't work. But that was because Russia was invaded by 14 different countries who then bankrolled rebel armies to fight the revolution, blockaded Russia for several years and ruthlessly surpressed (by terrorism and murder) workers' risings in other parts of the world.

So, well durr it doesn't work, that's like me coming round your house, breaking your legs with a baseball bat, stamping on your fingers with my big boots, kicking your teeth out and stealing your phone, then complaining that you can't even order me a pizza.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes it did, Bud. The American Constitution and the principles of the French Republic, even the declarations of the English radicals at the time of the Civil Wars and the ensuing shenanigans. The bourgeoisie constantly claimed the universality of its message - liberty, equality and fraternity. They held this truth to be self evident, that all men were created equal. The lowliest 'he' in the state had the same rights as the mightiest 'he'.

You are mistaking Democracy with Capitalism. Singapore is vastly Capitalistic but not much Democracy there. No, Capitalism should give everyone a shot at making it into the big time. That's all it does. And everyone has a shot--some lots more than others.

Democracy treats every vote the same. Everyone is created equal--NOT payed the same. A big difference.

However the problem with capitalism, eminently manifest over the last 400 years or so, is that rich are the powerful and their 'liberty equality and fraternity' in the end only extends as far as the others who are rich and powerful the rest of us can go hang (or starve).

I agree, but that's only because the unwashed masses rarely exhert their perogaive. And who's fault is that? Communism seems to wat to FORCE people into being what they don't want to be or aren't.

Communism, however has demonstrated precisely never that it can't work. I agree it didn't work. But that was because Russia was invaded by 14 different countries who then bankrolled rebel armies to fight the revolution, blockaded Russia for several years and ruthlessly surpressed (by terrorism and murder) workers' risings in other parts of the world.

And China and Vietnam and Cambodia and Poland, etc. and you know the rest. Lots of "Revolutions" there. We got some party animals in Spain in the 30s and some bean-picking-son-of-a-guns in Mexico in the 80s but they never went anywhere.

So yes, technically Communism never proved it didn't work--but after many tries-it never proved it could. So I'm an agnostic when it comes to a workable Communism. Can you blame me?

So, well durr it doesn't work, that's like me coming round your house, breaking your legs with a baseball bat, stamping on your fingers with my big boots, kicking your teeth out and stealing your phone, then complaining that you can't even order me a pizza.

Were we ever engaged?

[Blake's Baby]

Democracy is the political expression of the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy and its privileges. Capitalism is the economic system that creates the bourgeoisie. At a particular point, the emergent capitalist bourgeoisie overthrows the feudal system in the name of a universal democracy (mainly because they need the proletariat to help overthrow privilege, but maybe some of them actually believe it). Thus, democracy is the ideology of emergent capitalism. They're indelibly linked.

Later, once capitalism is no longer 'emergent' but decidedly decadent, 'state capitalism' becomes the dominant form. This often involves brutal dictatorships (eg Chile, Argentina in the 70s-80s, Cuba in the 1950s, the South Africa Apartheid regime, etc), but that doesn't alter the fact that the capitalist class promised the working class a better future having overthrown the aristocracy.

On Cuba, Vietnam, China etc, I regard them as inadmissable for the prosecution. Only in Russia did the working class take power. In all the other 'revolutions' you mention, a party-clique took power, establishing not the basis for communism but another state-capitalist dictatorship, like the military dictatorships I mention above, but with a dfferent coloured flag. So, no 'attempted communism' there. To claim that 'communism failed' because the Chinese Communist Party failed, is as facile as if I claimed 'democracy failed' because the American Democratic Party failed. Only for a short time in Russia (and very briefly in parts of Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain and a few towns and cities elsewhere) were the working class ever in control. In each case the revolution was drowned in blood by capitalism. That doesn't demonstrate communism doesn't work, it demonstrates capitalism is psychotic and sociopathic, and the capitalist class is desperate to hold on to power.

Were you ever engaged to a British guy with a red beard?