[Turning Point]

Misconception 1) Under socialism, everyone is equal

To start, I'd like to quote a rather lengthy passage from Lenin's The State And Revolution:

“Equality” apparently reigns supreme.

But when Lassalle, having in view such a social order (usually called socialism, but termed by Marx the first phase of communism), says that this is "equitable distribution", that this is "the equal right of all to an equal product of labor", Lassalle is mistaken and Marx exposes the mistake.

"Hence, the equal right," says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to "bourgeois law", which,like all law, implies inequality. All law is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one another. That is why the "equal right" is violation of equality and an injustice. In fact, everyone, having performed as much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product (after the above-mentioned deductions).

But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. And the conclusion Marx draws is:

"... With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal."

The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production--the factories, machines, land, etc.--and make them private property. In smashing Lassalle's petty-bourgeois, vague phrases about “equality” and “justice” in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the “injustice” of the means of production seized by individuals, and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not according to needs).

The vulgar economists, including the bourgeois professors and “our” Tugan, constantly reproach the socialists with forgetting the inequality of people and with “dreaming” of eliminating this inequality. Such a reproach, as we see, only proves the extreme ignorance of the bourgeois ideologists.

Marx not only most scrupulously takes account of the inevitable inequality of men, but he also takes into account the fact that the mere conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society (commonly called “socialism”) does not remove the defects of distribution and the inequality of "bourgeois laws" which continues to prevail so long as products are divided "according to the amount of labor performed". Continuing, Marx says:

"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."

And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.

However, it persists as far as its other part is concerned; it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labor among the members of society. The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products.

This is a “defect”, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change.

Now, there are no other rules than those of "bourgeois law". To this extent, therefore, there still remains the need for a state, which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production, would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of products.

The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.

But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary.

Taken from Chapter Five of The State And Revolution, 3. The First Phase Of Communist Society

The notion that under socialism everyone is "equal" (or that some are more "equal" then others) is a misconceived assertion at best. The point of socialism IMHO isn't to turn proletarians-urban workers-into nameless automatons who are all the same but to create a "kingdom on earth," a society wherein the means of production are put under the proletariat's control and where the resultant proletarian state uses its authority to run society in such a manner as to be beneficial to the proletariat. That's socialism, that's proletarian rule.

Socialism can create greater equality, but it can't erase inequality completely because as long as there are still definite classes there will be those who are superior to others in some ways.

Misconception 2) Socialism makes people poor(er) then under capitalism (i.e. North Korea, Cuba, etc.)

According to the book Fanshen (I'm paraphrasing, so it sounds less amazing then in the actual book) a revolution would create a true cornucopia of wealth for the villagers; goods-valuables, furniture, food, carts, pack animals, etc.-were taken away from the land lord and rich peasant classes and redistributed across the whole village as to benefit the poor and middle peasants (not surprisingly, many poor peasants became middle peasants). These goods were distributed in such a manner as to be humanly possible, the wealth was spread around as to benefit as many people as possible in as fair a way as possible. Sure there were excesses and abuses (militiamen helped themselves to some of the goods when no one was watching), but overall the local village community of Long Bow prospered and flourished as all of this material wealth was finally put into the hands of poor and middle peasants (the two groups having been in a tactical alliance against the rich peasantry and land lords as part of the communist party's stance on the agrarian revolution)

Socialism created boundless levels of wealth spread out as to benefit the vast majority of people. Fanshen, esp. that part of the book that I paraphrased and that everyone should read IMHO, puts to shame the notion that socialism only creates want and misery as according to the mainstream media (which are beholden to the wealthy who control much of the country's array of wealth) and lying (bourgeois) politicians.

Misconception 3) Socialism doesn't lead in practice to proletarian rule, but to rule by bureaucratic communists

From Lenin's influential booklet "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder:

...The first questions to arise are: how is the discipline of the proletariat’s revolutionary party maintained? How is it tested? How is it reinforced? First, by the class-consciousness of the proletarian vanguard and by its devotion to the revolution, by its tenacity, self-sacrifice and heroism. Second, by its ability to link up, maintain the closest contact, and—if you wish—merge, in certain measure, with the broadest masses of the working people—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian masses of working people. Third, by the correctness of the political leadership exercised by this vanguard, by the correctness of its political strategy and tactics, provided the broad masses have seen, from their own experience, that they are correct. Without these conditions, discipline in a revolutionary party really capable of being the party of the advanced class, whose mission it is to overthrow the bourgeoisie and transform the whole of society, cannot be achieved. Without these conditions, all attempts to establish discipline inevitably fall flat and end up in phrase mongering and clowning. On the other hand, these conditions cannot emerge at once. They are created only by prolonged effort and hard-won experience. Their creation is facilitated by a correct revolutionary theory, which, in its turn, is not a dogma, but assumes final shape only in close connection with the practical activity of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement.

---

It is common knowledge that the masses are divided into classes, that the masses can be contrasted with classes only by contrasting the vast majority in general, regardless of division according to status in the social system of production, with categories holding a definite status in the social system of production; that as a rule and in most cases—at least in present-day civilised countries—classes are led by political parties; that political parties, as a general rule, are run by more or less stable groups composed of the most authoritative, influential and experienced members, who are elected to the most responsible positions, and are called leaders

It is commonly asserted that what happened in the Soviet Union was a dictatorship not of the proletariat but of the ruling party. That the nefarious vanguard party took over power from the proletariat, that power of the people was replaced with power of the leaders.

As Lenin clearly lays out classes, being as they are organized through political parties, will naturally have leaders who come from a party representing the advanced class. These leaders-be they proletarians or communist intellectuals-seek to create a society representative of the proletariat. Under socialism there will naturally be those who lead and those who are led just as under capitalism.

IMHO this doesn't diminish proletarian rule (which still is very much alive and well through power structures set up from below, in China's case Peasants' Associations, Women's Associations, popular militias, etc. in Russia's case soviets, non-party trade unions, etc.) which in fact is in existence. The party merely acts as the representative of the advanced class who, serving as leaders, are to lead the proletarian vanguard and in turn the more backward classes along the socialist road.

---

Those are just a few misconceptions about socialism that I'd like to clear up. Feel free to comment and discuss (I'm curious as to what others have to say, be they anarchists, socialists, or Marxists, and so forth)

[Eran]

Socialism created boundless levels of wealth spread out as to benefit the vast majority of people. Fanshen, esp. that part of the book that I paraphrased and that everyone should read IMHO, puts to shame the notion that socialism only creates want and misery as according to the mainstream media (which are beholden to the wealthy who control much of the country's array of wealth) and lying (bourgeois) politicians.

Is there any independent evidence for the "boundless levels of wealth" created by socialism? Is there any example of a socialist society, lasting more than a few years, and which didn't resort to strict legal prohibition on emigration to stop those so greatly benefited from "voting with their feet" against those benefits?

The party merely acts as the representative of the advanced class who, serving as leaders, are to lead the proletarian vanguard and in turn the more backward classes along the socialist road.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the party hears (i.e. is aware of), let alone listens (i.e. acts in accordance to the wishes of) the proletarians?

For example, can you share with us some of the successes of Russia's non-party trade unions? Any evidence to suggest that local organs such as those Peasant's Associations were conveying information and influence from the proletariats to the party, rather than the other way around?

[Turning Point]

Is there any independent evidence for the "boundless levels of wealth" created by socialism?

I'd highly suggest you read the chapter in William Hinton's Fanshen entitled "The Fruits Of Struggle." Here's an excerpt:

On the right, behind the livestock, the farm implements were lined up. They included a large two-wheeled cart with iron-rimmed wheels, a wooden plow with an iron-tipped point, a harrow made of woven wattles, four heavy mattock-like hoes, a dozen three-pronged wooden pitchforks made from tree limbos that branched three ways, wooden shovels, rakes, seeders, manure buckets, a winch rope and a witch for raising water from a well, and many other useful things too numerous to mention.

...To the left stood the great crocks, jars, and tightly woven baskets that the gentry used for storing their grain. There were also reed mats that could be made into field shelters, storage bins, or sleeping covers for a k'ang.

...Here on display was the whole domestic and agricultural wealth of several prosperous gentry families, all of which had been transformed by bitter struggle into "fruits" belonging to the people.

In addition to the farm implements and other items, all of which was "carefully recorded by a committee of poor peasants," were numerous tables, dressers, sideboards, carved chests of cherry and mahogany, looms, several spinning wheels, reels for winding cotton yarn, round-bottom iron pots, bamboo baskets for steaming bread, clothes "of all shapes, sizes, colors, and styles, from crude home-spun work cottons to silk gowns and satin caps, embroidered undergarments , embroidered slippers, silk handkerchiefs, and handkerchiefs of lace, etc."

William Hinton was a tractor-technician working for the United Nations while over in rural northern China, which allowed him to join one of the work-teams sent to Long Bow Village to observe the agrarian revolution in the countryside just after Japan's defeat and the subsequent renewal of the Chinese Civil War in the mid- through late-1940's.

He got to know many of the peasants, befriending several of them and becoming known as Han Ding across mainland China in ensuing years. He would return later to write another book, this time on the experiences of Chinese villages during the Cultural Revolution, called Shenfan.

So yes, there is independent evidence for this "boundless levels of wealth" created by the socialist revolution in the countryside.

Is there any example of a socialist society, lasting more than a few years, and which didn't resort to strict legal prohibition on emigration to stop those so greatly benefited from "voting with their feet" against those benefits?

Mass emigration wasn't that common in Mao's China except for a handful who fled to Taiwan as the People's Liberation Army swept across mainland China and into the cities. Peasants had, with the communists' help, beaten down the immense power of the Nationalists and the landed gentry along with the rich peasantry and in doing so they had secured the gains made through the land reform process in the years prior to 1949 when the Chinese Civil War came to an end.

Later, industry would be nationalized after having been for the most part left untouched (the CPC not having wanted to anger individual capitalists by recklessly nationalizing large-scale capitalist industry prior to the civil war's end in 1949).

Any evidence to suggest that local organs such as those Peasant's Associations were conveying information and influence from the proletarians to the party, rather than the other way around?

You automatically assume that the party lorded over the Peasants' Associations like some monolithic force, which clearly shows that you haven't read Fanshen or anything else on the Chinese Civil War and Revolution for that matter (I would recommend Mao: A Life by Philip Short to get a good view as to how China was in the 1930's and 1940's as well as to get a good bit of information on Mao's rule during and after the Chinese Civil War)

The Peasants' Associations were composed of elected poor peasants, including a few women who had initially found refuge in their own organizations known as Women's Associations (which sought to challenge and dismantle patriarchy in the initially male-dominated villages).

There were also village people's congresses later on to go along with the Peasants' Associations.

[Eran]

Mass emigration wasn't that common in Mao's China except for a handful who fled to Taiwan as the People's Liberation Army swept across mainland China and into the cities.

Was legal emigration possible in general? Naturally, if emigration was illegal, and even an intent to emigrate could doom you, mass emigration wouldn't be common, would it?

[Leninist]

I think Mao would have been a fine leader had he not initiated the cultural revolution and great leap forwards.