This is an example of the lack of seriousness I am talking about. I have said repeatedly that I am an enemy of Stalinism. I explained that the Trotskyists were the first victims of Stalin, and tried to give a brief overview of why Stalin triumphed over the revolutionary Marxists in the USSR.
None of this ever seems to sink in to the anti-communist mind, though. It just seems to go straight past them, and they simply continue to regurgitate old anti-communist propaganda.
A system is judged by how it improves the lot of the masses of the people who live under it, not by its comparison to other states. Cuba was a desperately poor country in 1959. It’s ridiculous to compare Cuba now to the U.S. now, since they started out in drastically different positions in 1959. The question is how have things changed since 1959, and indisputably, the lot of the masses has been dramatically improved.
I said before that the material standard is higher in the U.S., but again, this just seems to float right by. I hope that there are some people out there with more seriousness than this. Else I am probably wasting my time.
See everybody, here’s the answer. These darn workers just don’t know what’s good for them. The fact that so many people are so desperate to get out of Cuba that they will try to escape the island and float to Florida in a life raft just shows how brainwashed all those people are.
The fact that workers in the US have roundly rejected communism just proves how successful the “ruling class” has been at “retarding” the consciousness of the oppressed class.
The workers are “alienated,” you see. They don’t really know what they want.
Luckily for them, Sandino and Olentzero and company do know what’s good for them.
Lucky them.
This is the fundamental problem with Marxism as a guide to action. In Russia, and East Germany, and China, and Vietnam, and Cambodia, and Cuba, and every other country that has had the terrible misfortune to have Marxism visited upon it, the ruling elite has presumed to speak for the “oppressed proletariat” that is to “alienated” to know what’s good for it.
The result has been, in every case, oceans of blood spilled.
Bohm-Bawerk basically demolished Marxist economic theory in the 1890’s, so that’s done with. The “labor theory of value” has been dead in the water for decades.
Capitalism has proven amazingly good at pacifying the working class with material goods and comfort, so there won’t be any uprising of the proletariat in the future. Dishwashers and microwave ovens are the opiate of the masses
Marxism stripped of economic theory and the historical dialectic is basically equivalent to nothing.
Considering this, Marxism has proven irrelevant and lives on only as a relic, occasionally to be invoked by college professors. Marxism made a number of important observations, but as a coherent set of beliefs about the functioning of the world, it’s dead. In some ways, that’s a shame, since Marxism was an attempt to translate modernist notions of scientific study into a political theory to explain history and human behaviour. That attempt deserves a chance, not to be dismissed out of hand by idiotic postmodernists (by which I mean all postmodernists.)
But aside from my objections on principle to collectivist morality, Jonmarzie makes the excellent points. There is simply no plausible way to transition from the large and intrusive state necessary to obtain proletarian control of the means of production and the post-statist society that Marx hoped would inevitably follow.
How about the system that was used to improve the lives of the masses in Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea? All desperately poor nations in the 50s, but now with standards of living so far above that in Cuba as to defy comparison. How do you judge that system?
Oh, Jesus H. Wesley tapdancin’ Christ. :rolleyes: What organization are you with, the Spartacist League? League for a Revolutionary Party? sigh Just when I thought “Finally, someone who has my back around here”. And yes, you’re quite right - we have very little to agree on. And it’s dead certain that if I were to start debating you, we could, just by us two ourselves, create a GD thread that dwarfs even the 10-page “Abolition of money” thread I got into with the board’s hardest conservatives. But I’m not gonna. I have other, far tastier fish to fry.
Larry, I’m glad you liked the site, but it’s way skimpier than I would have liked to use. I’ve got some more research to do on that one.
epnoymous, I’m certainly interested in continuing the debate on the nature of the Russian Revolution and what happened to it. As well as addressing the numbers provided by Captain Amazing on deaths in Soviet Russia under Lenin. But it’s gonna take a couple of days 'cos I have monster projects at work I should have stopped ignoring a while ago.
Speaking of which, the good Cap’n brings up a valid point - were those armies on Russian soil proper or simply within the boundaries of the old Russian empire? On the surface of it, though, that may be a moot point because, at least as I understand it, the new governments of those independent countries were sympathetic to the Bolsheviks and fought just as hard against the Whites and the foreign armies. But as I said, I gotta do a lot more research on it before I can come back to the question.
Hardest conservatives? I hardly consider myself a conservative and certainly not a hard one.
The Allies landed at both. Murmansk, Archangel and Vladivostok were all major landing points within Russia proper. They also fought in Finland and the Baltic states. The Germans, of course, went up through Ukraine, also.
Finally, thanks for a forthright reply. At least I know now where I can peruse the relevant source material on which you rely.
*Originally posted by Olentzero *
Interesting - maybe if you get a chance you can shed some light on the above in re Tony Cliff (Spartacist League?).
(Note: I found this. All I can say is - dude, you communists are a riot)
No problem - like I said, I still need to do my homework. Just wanted to draw your attention to my post in case you wanted to correct any factual errors.
Note: In lieu of the above information in re Sandino, I’m definitely going to get “Before Stalinism” by Farber. If the info in the above posted link is accurate, I’m sure they wouldn’t be too fond of Farber, either. I remember reading something regarding Farber (when looking for sources in our previous discussion) that he made the Shachtmanites sound like neocons.
Be glad to, as briefly as I can. Tony Cliff, né Ygael Gluckstein, was a Palestinian Jew who was won to revolutionary politics sometime in the 1930s, if I remember correctly. (His autobiography, A World to Win, is an interesting read.) Sometime in the late 1940s, after the war and his emigration to Britain, he visited the Soviet Union to get material for a book on its political defense. What came out of it, however, was State Capitalism in Russia, a thoroughly Marxist analysis of what had happened to the Soviet Union since the rise of Stalin. This led to a critical re-thinking of Trotsky’s views of the USSR as a “degenerated workers’ state” and ultimately led to the founding of the International Socialist Tendency, of which the International Socialist Organization (to which I belong) was a sister group for many years.
The Spartacist League, along with the League for a Revolutionary Party, are two groups who, in my experience, like to do nothing but squabble with the ISO. Their basic attitudes towards us is neatly encapsulated in Sandino’s post on Tony Cliff, which is why I asked whether s/he was a member of either group. Only somebody that sectarian would consider it a matter of prime importance to rail on about how stupid Tony Cliff is instead of actually working alongside another leftist on the board to defend Marxism.
Yes, I basically agree with you - just wanted to draw your attention to something that approached the ideal of a socialistic/communist society (in it’s own limited manner within a wider capitalistc framework, of course). It would be an interesting thought experiment if instead of one Mondragon, the entire world economy consisted of Mondragon-like cooperatives, all interconnected in a network of interdependent trade relationships.
To induce a bit of vomit, I ‘feel your pain’ Olentzero. Though I’m sure we’d disagree on most things, it really really sucks to have gibbering idiots give your cause a bad name.
Sorry, Olentzero - I didn’t mean to disparage you or your thoughts (even though I don’t agree with everything you stand for). I just find it fascinating that there are all these factions, and factions within factions, within various Communist organizations. The same can be said for the mainstream political organizations (Democrats and Republicans) as well. But, well, those parties’ factionalism is boring; they don’t quite have the “oomph” as those found in non-mainstream organizations.
I suppose in another life we could find common ground in the “struggle” - However, it would probably be as an anarchist rather than as a socialist/communist (of the Kropotkin/Recleus variety - geographers, like myself). Although, to be fair, if Bakunin were around, I could see myself being swayed by his fiery rhetoric - I understand he was quite an impressive speaker.
Nah, I totally didn’t take it that way. I’m just overly sensitive to the “one true Scotsman” label I’ve been slapped with once or twice in defending my views on Russia, and anything that reinforces the perception that leftist are basically a bunch of squabbly little fidgets who’d rather fight each other than organize leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Meanwhile, the Lenin and the 4 Million Killed thread seems to be heating up, so what say we blow this burgeoning anti-ignorance lovefest and head thataway?
Hijack: did that thread get eaten in the Great Board Crash awhile back? I’ve searched for it from time to time and can’t find it. If you have a link, or better searching skills than I, I’d appreciate help finding it.
That is a very interesting summary of events, which conveniently leaves out a number of important facts. The “theory” that the USSR was a form of capitalism did not originate with Tony Cliff, but with a guy named Karl Kautsky. In fact, Kautsky came up with most of the anti-communist propaganda that continues to be spouted by various enemies of Marxism to this day. Kautsky was an ideological leader of the 2nd International, but succumbed to national chauvinist pressure during WWI, and deserted the camp of Marxism. He became a vociferous opponent of the Bolsheviks, and wrote bitter diatribes against the “undemocratic” soviet system.
In fact, it was the betrayal of the fake socialists during WWI that turned Lenin into a Leninist. Upon hearing that the German Social Democrats had voted for war credits, Lenin declared that the 2nd Int. was a “rotting corpse.”
Anyway, Lenin and Trotsky decisively refuted Kautskyan revisionism in two important works, Lenin’s The Proletarian Revolution and Renegade Kautsky, and Trotsky’s Communism and Terrorism. The attacks on the Bolsheviks ever since have mostly been plagiarisms of Kautsky. Cliff’s “theory” of “state capitalism” is no different in this regard.
Olentzero claims that it was Cliff’s experience in the USSR that led to him to adopt this “theory.” That is quite strange, since he was quite aware of the experiences of the Trotskyists in the USSR, in their persecution, and finally elimination. The idea that Cliff was somehow “disillusioned” in the USSR, after all that had happened to the Trotskyists and every other person who opposed Stalin, is quite amazing. And, in fact, it isn’t true.
The precipitating factor that led to Cliff’s adopting the anti-Marxist doctrine was the heating up of the Cold War, and in particular the assault on Korea. During this period a wave of anti-communist hysteria swept the western bourgeois states, particularly the U.S. and U.K. It was particularly exacerbated by the North Korean “invasion” of the south, and the ensuing assault on the deformed workers state by the U.N. Simply put, Cliff succumbed to the pressures of social chauvinism. It was a very difficult time to be a communist, and he simply wasn’t up to it.
The “theory” of state capitalism says that the USSR became a form of capitalism when the Stalinists usurped political power in 1924. Trotsky decisively refuted this theory in 1936 in Revolution Betrayed. The section on “state capitalism” is here. He concludes the section with, “Our brief analysis is sufficient to show how absurd are the attempts to identify capitalist state-ism with the Soviet system.” This was in 1936, keep in mind, over a decade before Cliff supposedly discovered that the USSR was state capitalist.
The “theory” will obviously not withstand criticism. Consider the following points:
(1) According to Marx, capitalism can only exist as “many capitals.” But there was not “many capitals” in the USSR, the means of production were all owned by the state.
(2) Capitalism depends on competition to regulate prices through supply and demand, but in the USSR production was regulated according to a plan.
(3) There was no capitalist class in the USSR. The bureaucracy did not own the means of production–they could not sell the factories for a profit, nor could they pass on this property to their offspring. The bureaucracy was form of social parasitism without any independent relationship to the means of production.
(4) The Soviet economy grew at a steady rate without any of the periodic crises endemic to capitalism. There were no periods of mass unemployment, and, crucially, there was never a crisis of overproduction. This point is crucial for a Marxist, because if it was the case that the USSR was a form of capitalism, then it proves that Marx’s analysis of capitalism was fundamentally flawed, as it would imply that the Stalinists had solved the problems of capitalism.
(5) If the USSR was a form of capitalism, then the transition to actual capitalism in 1992 should have been rather seamless. It should not have been accompanied by any significant shocks or social upheavals. In fact, the Cliffites claimed that the 1992 collapse was simply a “shift sideways” from one form of capitalism to another. This utterly fails to explain, though, the horrendous economic catastrophe that followed the collapse. The collapse precipitated a drastic decline in industrial production and capital investment, which had a devastating impact on the population. You have to be somewhat demented to claim that this was simply a “shift sideways.”
Polemicizing against Tony Cliff is defending Marxism. It is quite humorous, though, that you would complain about such polemicizing as being somehow un-Marxist. But, all you have to do is look through the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky to see that a large amount of their writings were polemics. Engels’ most famous work, for example, is Anti-Duhring, a long polemic on Duhring. Marx’s The Poverty of Philosophy is a polemic against Proudhon. A few of Lenin’s most famous works are Imperialism, State and Revolution, The Proletarian Revolution and Renegade Kautsky, ‘Left Wing’ Communism, an Infantile Disorder, and Materialism and Emperio-Criticism, all of which are sustained polemics against other leftists.
The point of such polemicizing is not mere sectarianism, but is done for the purpose of clarifying political positions. The prevailing ideas of any society are those of its ruling class. We are all subject to the pressures of bourgeois ideology, which assaults us continuously. In order to combat bourgeois ideology in the workers movement it is necessary to have vigorous debate of all the important issues of the day. Marxist politics is above all principled politics.
The thing about the Cliffites that is so disgusting is not so much their anti-communism as the fact that they claim the mantle of Lenin and Trotsky. If you look at their website, for example, www.internationalsocialist.org they claim to be in the tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. On the same page, they claim that the USSR had nothing to do with socialism, but was “state capitalist”! You can’t have it both ways! Both Lenin and Trotsky polemicized against the theory of “state capitalism,” and Trotsky fought to the end of his life in defense of the USSR.
Once you give up your principles you end up tailing after every force that seems to be “anti-imperialist,” even if it happens to be composed of virulent anti-communists and enemies of the working class. For example, in the current issue of International Socialist Review, they display on the cover an interview with Noam Chomsky. Chomsky is a notorious anti-communist who said, among other things, that Lenin was “one of the worst enemies of socialism,” and that “if the left is understood to include Bolshevism, I would flatly dissociate myself from the left.” Furthermore, he has stated that the Democratic Party in the U.S. is “far less objectionable” than the Bolsheviks. This is the guy they have in their theoretical journal. In the tradition of Lenin and Trotsky? I think not.
The 20th century was a century of revolutions. Proletarian uprisings that could have been successful revolutions occured in Germany 1918 and 1923, China 1927, Spain 1936, Italy 1945, Iraq 1958, Portugal 1974 and Chile 1973, to mention a few. All of these revolutions were crushed. We Marxists attempt to learn something from history, from the defeats as well as the victories. The most important lesson to learn from the defeats is that most of the left will line up on the side of their “own” bourgeoisie when push comes to shove. It was the Social Democrats that crushed the German revolutions, the anarchists that were responsible for the defeat of the Spanish workers, the reformist socialists that disarmed the workers in Chile, and so forth and so on. It was only Lenin’s Bolsheviks that were able to harness the energy of the working classes and actually take power.
The ISO will always end up taking the side of their own bourgeoisies when it comes to a serious conflict, since they have not made a conscious break from the capitalists, they have not gone over completely to the side of the workers. On issue after issue they side against the working class, always trying to find that elusive “progressive” wing of the bourgeoisie. They cheered the mujahadeen terrorists in Afghanistan fighting the Red Army, calling them “freedom fighters.” They cheered along with Bush and Yeltsin at the collapse of the USSR. They cheered at NATO bombs dropping on Serbia. …the list could go on all day.
The Cliffites are not Trotskyists. They simply use the name of Trotsky to posture as revolutionaries, but they have long ago abandoned every principled position taken by Trotsky.
All of the isms fail to take into account that all humans are human and each one will do that which seem ‘right’ in his own eyes.
Letrs redistribute all the assests of the world equally to each and every human being.
Due to prior education, training, interest, and drive each human will use his portion to spend it unwisely or to put it to use to obtain more through trade, barter, exchange, or employ it for gain in other ways which usually require hard work.
Likely sooner than later all society will become stratified it to those who work and are well off and those who are lazy and poor.
The isms assume that those who sieze power do so for the benefit of the proletariat while in reality they do so to exercise power and for their own benefit leaving the proletariat no better off than before.
Lords, counter-revolutionary traitors in the midst! What shall be done with them? Should they be the first or the second up against the wall if their attitudes fail to reflect the proper thought needed of “true” Marxist ideals? After all, what is to be done with traitors?
This is the sum of my objections to all revolutionary ideals, and revolutionary thought that divides the world neatly into us and them, or if you aren’t with us you’re against us, whether it’s a narrow view of Marx or Ann Coulter in general. No objections intended towards Olentzero, who has refrained from spouting propaganda.
