It all goes back to the question of whether or not the countries that still call themselves “communist” actually are. One of the conclusions Marx and Engels drew, both from the Communist Manifesto and through the experience of the Paris Commune in 1871, is that a communist revolution must be made by the working class, not for it or on behalf of it. So one litmus test for such countries as have been mentioned here - Cuba and China, for example - is whether or not the revolutions in those countries that brought the current regimes to power. Instead of going through the whole question again here, I would like to refer you to a post I wrote back in February on the same question.
Now, after having read that, if you accept the argument that China, Cuba, Korea, and Eastern Europe (the countries of which didn’t even have revolutions but had their regimes established at the tips of Stalin’s bayonets) are not, nor have they ever been, communist, the question of explaining why communism seems to be dying out becomes moot. Sandino has done a rather good job of explaining, in general, why the Russian revolution degenerated into the Stalinist one-party state, and it cannot be emphasized enough that the rise of Stalinism was in no way a logical consequence of either the tenets of Marxism or of Bolshevik policy in general. There were specific historical and material circumstances - the economic devastation of World War I and the invasion and occupation of Russian territory by 14 foreign armies, including that of the US - that led the Bolsheviks to “circle the wagons” and impose more draconian restrictions on party democracy and workers’ democracy than they would have liked. The failure of working-class revolution internationally in the period immediately following 1917 led to those measures being made permanent by a leadership whose revolutionary politics were either much weaker (like Bukharin and Zinoviev) than those who’d led the party during the hardest times, or completely nonexistent (like Stalin and those who joined the ranks of the party after the Civil War).
Does that mean, as has been asserted in this thread, that the Russian Revolution “doesn’t count”? Well, it depends on what you want it to count for. The whole history of the Soviet Union ought not to be defended - or denounced - as an example of Marxism made concrete. But the October Revolution, as much as the Paris Commune should be defended as an example of what the working class of the world can do to begin to make socialism a reality. In short, the Soviet Union “doesn’t count” as an example of communism. But the Russian Revolution does “count” as an example of a step that is vitally necessary to get there.
Ok. For the sake of arguement, I accept that the listed countries did not represent communist thought, in action or deed. How does that explain the fact that social-democracy seems to be spreading rapidly throughout the world? How does it explain the fact that there ARE no Marx/Engels style governments (that conform to your own values on what a proper movement would be), and no real, SERIOUS movement in any of the industrialized world to have one? How does it explain the fact that ‘the workers’ are ALSO not overwhelmingly in favor of it in any industrialized nation…that I’m aware of at least. If this isn’t true, please provide a cite if you have a good example of a serious workers movement, that is based on your own principles of what a true Marxist communist movement would be.
BTW, thanks for rationally discussion all this…and thanks for actually DISCUSSING it, not just throwing out retoric.
Olentzaro:
So, if there has never been a “true” communist country, what makes you so certain it’s a great idea (ie, it’s never been tested)? We’ve never had a “true” capitalist society either. In fact, it is highly unlikely we’ll ever have a true anything, so the best we can do is look at the examples of “partially true” systems. So, would you rather live in East or West Germany in the late-middle part of the 20th century?
Elaborate on this, please. There are a whole range of government types across the globe, from the highly-regulated and regimented societies like Singapore to the right-wing militaristic societies like the US and India, and so on to the more permissive societies like that of the Netherlands. Which country(ies) are closest to your definition of “social-democracy”, which countries have recently adopted such systems (I presume you mean since the collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellite states in 1991), and what did it replace?
The first question is pretty much answered by the second - there are no Marxist governments in power now because there hasn’t been a revolutionary working-class movement to put them in power.
The second question is the vital one. As I see it, there are three major components to the answer, at least as far as the US working class is concerned. The first is the largely successful efforts of the US government and big business to root out the militant socialist and communist tendencies in the unions during the 1930s and 1940s. A lot of the big strikes during the 30s had a serious political component to them and were led by people who were members of the CP-USA and other revolutionary parties. Not only did these strikes win union recognition in a lot of workplaces and cities that didn’t have unions in the first place, they also boosted union power. The last thing the US government wanted was strong unions that not only fought for a bigger share of the pie, but also talked about how to win the whole bakery.
Second was the postwar boom of the late 1940s through the late 1960s, when it was a lot easier for the US government and big businesses to boost wages and benefits and social programs. Arguments that the system needed to change didn’t seem to make much sense when things seemed pretty damn good on the home front.
Thirdly there was the whole Cold War phenomenon. Back then everyone in the West had it drilled into their heads that the Soviet Union was the everlasting embodiment of Communism on earth and anyone who even vaguely sympathized with Marx wanted the same thing for the US. McCarthyism, the Rosenbergs, and the threat of nuclear annihilation made politics to the left of the Democrats not seem like a safe option at all. Not to mention the fact that the CP-USA followed whatever criminal lunacy Stalin and later Khrushchev managed to cook up.
Of course, people started questioning the status quo in the mid- to late Sixties, but the left explicitly rejected the party-building approach to politics and it became a mishmosh of lifestyle groups, propaganda sects, and dangerous terror fronts.
Essentially, then, from the 1940s onwards, serious revolutionary politics in the US suffered from a series of highly damaging blows from which it is only just beginning to recover. Similar politics in the Third World suffered at the hands of US imperialism - either overt or covert interventions to topple popular governments, for one example - while those in Europe largely succumbed to complacency in the postwar boom, either concentrating on economic betterment and greater union representation than the need for the revolutionary overthrow of the old order, or becoming radical guerrilla armies and terror fronts.
Even with all that, working people still fight back around both economic and political issues. Strikes have never gone completely by the boards, even in the dark days of the early 50s, and these days we’re seeing a lot more organized labor involvement in mass protests, like in Seattle in 1999, and in Miami just two weeks ago. Not to mention a heavy labor presence in the European Social Forum in the middle of November. People are not just recognizing injustice but taking action against it, and active socialists want to get involved in those movements too, to bring politics and arguments to the mix and to learn how to organize and push things forward. So no, I don’t have a cite to show that there is, as you say,
but I can point to where such a movement can come from.
John Mace, East Germany isn’t even an example of a “partially true” socialist system; it’s a “completely false” system. The choice isn’t limited to wanting the world to be like either East or West Germany after the Wall went up.
Olentzero:
But you still haven’t answered the fundamental question. If Marxism has never been put into practice, how do you know it’s such a great thing? If it has been put into practice, show me the great things it has accomplished.
The difficulty with the Marxist proposition is the same as it has always been.
[ul][li]It has never been successfully implemented.[/li][li]Every attempt to implement it has been a disaster.[/li][li]It cannot possibly succeed unless it is implemented in every society on earth at the same time.[/li][li]It necessarily implies robbery and death for at least 10% of the population of the earth.[/li][li]Ergo, it is a great idea.[/ul][/li]
Regards,
Shodan
Unbelievable, a resonable Marxian! Still, by definition a distortionist…
Are you aware that Lenin always advocated that “tsarist” Russia needs to experience complete defeat and demoralization in WWI as a necessary prerequisite for the Bolshevic revolution? Lenin was asking for “economic devastation of World War I and the invasion and occupation of Russian territory by … foreign armies”, so he could take power. And isn’t there a logical explanation to the fact that Russia’s allies, whose future leaders didn’t advocate a total self-collapse and demoralization in WWI, fared so much better?
“War Communism” was not “made permanent”. NEP (New Economic Policy) of 1920-s was basically a return to limited capitalism, minus the Tsar, plus random disappearances of “undesirable” people. New wave of repressions at the end of 1920-s was a very old story of internecine fights for power inside KPSS.
Guinastasia already noted that Russian Revolution happened in February 1917, in which Bolshevics and other Marxians took no part whatsoever. Bolshevics grabbed power by military takeover in October 1917, immediately dismissed Provisionary government and cancelled popular elections in 1918, thus plunging Russia into 4 years of Civil war, followed by 70 years of the bloodiest one-party dictatorship in history. Is that “an example of a step that is vitally necessary…to make socialism a reality”?
I honestly see it as a sliding scale, so I would consider most of them to be social democracies, in one form or another. Some are more right wing, some more left wing, but if they have elected, representational governments and some from of free market, while still having some level of social programs, then they would fall into MY range, for whatever thats worth.
Most recent adaptions would probably be the Asian/pacific rim ‘democracies’. Certainly Europe, Canada and Israel have been so for quite a while now, though I suppose you could make a case that several of the old eastern bloc countries are moving steadily in that direction (such as Poland…obviously the re-unified Germany IS there already, though still having teething pains from the Eastern half). Perhaps Russia is also moving in that direction…time will tell there. Several nations in central/south Amercia (such as Brazil) also fit the bill and are fairly recent in emergence. I’m of course using my own definitions here, so results may vary. Not sure what you are getting at here, but thats my take.
I read through the rest of your post, and appreciate the effort. Its clear that our versions/interperatations of history, especially US history, are different. I’m not making any comments on who is right or wrong, just that its vastly different. I want to focus on other things though.
My question to you would be…what would cause people who are happy with the way things are (which, I think the case can be made, at least in the modern western style social democracies) to want to junk the entire system for an unknown? Especially an unknown that is associated with some of the most repressive regimes ever (rightly or wrongly)? What does communism give them that they dont already have? After all, the strikes you mentioned happened WITHIN the current social-democratic structure. I would think that, baring a complete collapse of the western economic system, nothing would ever get more than a small percentage of folks to come on board to such an idea. Even the poor in the US would mostly reject communism IMO. So, could you elaborate on your last point to me:
From Olentzero
[QUOTE]
So no, I don’t have a cite to show that there is, as you say,
quote:
a serious workers movement, that is based on [my] own principles of what a true Marxist communist movement would be
but I can point to where such a movement can come from.QUOTE]
Where do you think such a movement would come from? What would spark it in todays world. Who would join? What would the cost (monetary and in human terms) be?
Wait a minute! I agree that the worldview of a society is rooted in its economic customs, as those come to be seen as realities. Not for no reason were some of the most striking thinkers in history slackers, idle academics, & other non-conformists (Kant, Diogenes the Cynic, Socrates, various & sundry yogis & mendicants, etc.).
I definitely concede Marx’s point that society is shaped by its economics. But it’s exactly because of that truth that economic reform, without dramatic political upheaval, can change society. We don’t need to conquer the government to change the economy, unless the government owns everything (as in “Marxist-Leninist” states). We can change the economy, thus changing society, & then the government will change evolutionarily. My earlier point about the armed struggle being unnecessary & counterproductive is based in this assumption.
So the practical question becomes, how active is our government in shoring up wage slavery? I don’t think the ruling class have much ideological stake in wage slavery, as its realities are only inperfectly seen by them. They’re not conscious enough of it to fight for it. Those who come up from the working class to the halls of power, on the other hand, have sufficient perspective that, given an education in these matters, they can be motivated for reform. (Though obviously, this doesn’t apply to those who come to power with the only motivation that they will rule, & make others their slaves.) I feel quite sure society is reformablevery reformable; societies evolve all the time.
Yes, the old, “I agree with Marx, except…” The “except” part always happens to be on the points where Marxism is unacceptable to the bourgeoisie. Sure, you can agree with Marx about class struggle, even that wage slavery exists, and so on. Up to a certain point, Marxism is acceptable to the liberal wing of the ruling class. There are some things that are unacceptable, though, and of these the most important is Marx’s greatest contribution, namely the necessity for the dictatorship of the proletariat. This necessity flows from the class nature of the state, and the fact that class antagonisms are not reconcilable. No state is neutral, but is merely an organization of violence for the suppression of an oppressed class. The oppressed class cannot use the existing state for its own purposes, but must smash the existing apparatus and erect its own.
The idea that capitalism can be reformed to serve the ends of working people is a hopelessly reactionary utopia.
Did you have a response to any of the refutations of your alleged points, or are you just going to spout the latest from the editorial page of the “Worker’s World Digest”?
Yes, amazingly enough, people object to being robbed and murdered. Imagine that.
The working class did come to power in October 1917. The Bolsheviks were the party of the revolutionary working class. The revolution put power in the hands of the working class through the institution of workers councils (soviets). The Bolsheviks were the political party in power, elected at the congress of soviets. As such, they were bound by party discipline, but the party members themselves had to be elected.
In March 1917 a spontaneous workers uprising overthrew Tsarism. In its place was put a provisional government of capitalists and landlords. Side by side with the bourgeois government were the organizations of the workers, soviets, factory shop committees, unions, etc. This was the period of dual power. The bourgeoisie was trying to hang onto its power through the provisional government, but it was too weak at the moment to utterly crush the workers organizations. This is a highly unstable situation. One class or another has to prevail. It was the Bolshevik party that harnessed the power of the toiling masses to smash the provisional government and institute the world’s first workers state. John Reed put it like this in Ten Days that Shook the World:
"It was the masses of the people, workers, soldiers and peasants, which forced every change in the course of the Revolution. … The impotence and indecision of the ever-changing Provisional Government was an argument nobody could refute. The Bolsheviki raised again the slogan so dear to the masses, ‘All Power to the Soviets!’–and they were not merely self-seeking, for at the time the majority of the Soviets was ‘moderate’ Socialist, their bitter enemy–
“But more potent still, they took the crude, simple desires of the workers, soldiers and peasants, and from them built their immediate programme. And so, while the oborontsi Mensheviki and Socialist Revolutionaries involved themselves in compromise with the bourgeoisie, the Bolsheviki rapidly captured the Russian masses. In July they were hunted and despised; by September the metropolitan workmen, the sailors of the Baltic Fleet, and the soldiers, had been won almost entirely to their cause.”
The program of the Bolsheviks was not about a quick coup. Rather, they spent most of 1917, “patiently explaining” their position to the masses, winning the workers and soldiers to their program. Due to this fact, by the time October came around, they had won the soldiers in the Petrograd garrison to their cause, and the majority of workers and peasants. The revolution, therefore, was almost bloodless. A total of 10 people on all sides were killed.
The counter-revolution was a different story. October was truly a monumental event, and one that struck terror in the hearts of the imperialists, because it was the first time that working people had thrown out their oppressors and started to run things for themselves, in their own interests. The imperialists, of course, could not allow a cancer like that to spread.
All of the bullshit you hear about the USSR, which is being repeated in this thread, about the “dictator” Lenin, or imaginary holocausts in the Ukraine, or the absurd claims about the economy, and so on and so forth, etc., etc., really are just reflections of the deep hatred of the bourgeoisie for the October Revolution.
The counter-revolutin was brutal and hugely destructive. All of the capitalist states aided the white army butchers who were trying to re-instate the monarchy. Soviet workers fought heroically, and defeated the counter-revolutionary scum. However, the society was devastated. Industry was destroyed. The working class had ceased to exist as a coherent class. In this situation, only an international revolution could save the infant state from degeneration or destruction. Since there was an insignificant working class, there was no social force in existence to prevent the rise of a conservative bureaucracy, i.e. Stalinism.
Stalinism reversed many of the gains of the revolution–racism was tolerated, the church allowed a greater role in society, democracy was expunged from the political spectrum, and the economy grossly mismanaged. Yet, in spite of all this, in spite of Stalinism, embargo, capitalist encirclement, and the heritage of Tsarism, the USSR was able to lift itself out of medieval backwardness in a decade. The growth of the Soviet economy in the 1930’s, when the a course was taken toward socialist development, is simply unprecedented. While the rest of the world was in a deep depression, the USSR’s economy was growing at incredible rates.
The real test of the planned, collectivized economy came in WWII, when the USSR slayed the Nazi beast singlehandedly. Despite all of the bullshit you were taught in schools, the Allies had almost no role in defeating the Nazis. The real fighting was in Russia. Here again, though, the soviets had to overcome the truly criminal mis-leadership of Stalin, who made blunder after blunder. In spite of it all, though, the Soviets triumphed.
In 1936 Leon Trotsky wrote that there were two possible outcomes for the USSR, “Either the workers will clean up the bureaucrat, or the bureaucrat will devour the workers state.” Trotskyists called for political revolution to replace the corrupt bureaucracy with the rule of workers through soviets. Unfortunately, the political revolution never came, and the bureaucrat did indeed devour the workers state. The bureaucrats who dismantled the USSR in 1992 are now the ruling capitalist class in Russia.
If anybody had any illusions in capitalism, they should have been shattered by the experience of post-Soviet Russia, which has gone through a deep decline in every aspect, apart from a tiny minority ruling class.
Like I have said, we Marxists fight for new October Revolutions. Capitalism will grind the working class to dust unless the workers unite and fight for power.
Truly. And all over the world, when workers have seen an opportunity to throw out the murderers and robbers of the people, they have tried to do so. The murderers and robbers, though, don’t like having their property taken away, and thus always fight back. We Marxists are for the forcible suppression of the robbers and murderers, and for society to be ruled by those who create wealth, the workiers.
Sandino, your position around women’s suffrage remains utterly preposterous. How is it, exactly, that the Soviet rise to power in Russia caused women to get the vote in Canada and Great Britain in 1918, and the United states in 1920? Please cite objective evidence. Actual evidence that those events were a direct result of the Communist decision to grant women some political power.
Have you ever even heard of Mary Wollstonecraft? Mill’s treatises on women’s rights? All the suffragist activists in the United States? You’re saying they DIDN’T cause women’s suffrage, but Lenin did? Well, show me the evidence.
(Note: The silly distraction “You disagree with me because you are a bourgeois running dog” is not a valid argument.)
The bourgeois suffragists and suffragettes had little to do with women winning the vote in the advanced capitalist states. This movement had no real social power behind it, since it was concentrated almost entirely among a small section of the liberal bourgeoisie and the wives of the liberal bourgeoisie. It had almost no connection to the working class. The bourgeois of all capitalist countries are generally opposed to women’s rights, as capitalism rests on the subjugation of women through the institution of the family. Essentially, rich women wanted to be able to participate in politics like their husbands did, while they had their nails done by a poor women whose vote counted for nothing.
This was not a sufficient social force to push through women’s suffrage. It was only the shock of the Russian Revolution that forced the hands of the western bourgeoisies.
Is this really a serious concern, though? I mean, what is your point? That the Russian Revolution had nothing to do with it? Or maybe, 10%? Or what? Do you not think that the world is connected, that what happens in Russia has a resonance in America? Do you at least see that the USSR was ahead of its time in giving women full political equality?
Seriously, getting back to the OP if the fundamental propostion of Marxism is that history is the history of class struggle, well, that’s just wrong. People simply do not identify themselves solely by their economic status. Furthermore there are many motives for historical movements. The conquests of Alexander were motivated by a quest for glory. The scientific revolution was motivated by curiosity. Also how can you explain the fact that there are people who work for the interests of people who are not members of their class; peace corps volunteers etc.
One of the great things about the U.S. is that you’re not stuck in your class. It’s hard to rise when you are born without advantages, but people do it all the time. My mom, for example, grew up without running water, but got an education and a civil service job, married well and now lives pretty comfortably.
As far as the legacy of communism, it speaks for itself. I believe the death figures may top 100 million when you add in the slaughters caused by Mao’s disastrous “Great leap forward” and “cultural revolution.” And the Ukranian disaster is no myth, though it is a question how many deaths were caused by murder and how many simply starved as a result of horrible economic planning.
Also, dialectics is not a science. It is a philosophy derived from Hegel. When read as Hegel intended it can generate some interesting insights into human consciousness. When turned into an overarching world view and single theory of history it degenerates into pseudo-science. The idea of marxism as a quasi-religion may offend some religious people but the fact is both are non-empirical belief systems which attempt to force facts into conformity with theory rather than adjusting theory to fit the evidence, as true sciences do.
That being said, It’s certainly not the case that Capitalist economies are perfect. There is indeed the possibility of oppression and exploitation. But there are plenty of remedies for this. Trade Unions and Gov’t regulation can adjust any inequities without the need for violent revolution and the brutal dictatorships that inevitably follow. If Unions and rgulation don’t satisfy you, you can advocate democratic socialism along the lines of the Scandinavian model. We could have a real debate as to whether the Scandinavian or the American system leads to a better society, but all this marxist clap-trap is absurd.
Just a minor nitpick. My (admitadly brief) understanding is that much of the starvation was a deliberate tactic by the soviets. They did not simply fail to put enough food in the markets. They actively invaded farms and took or burned food they found on private farms.