Bourgeois Marxism - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Discourse exclusively on the basis of historical materialist methodology.
Forum rules: No one line posts please. This forum is for discussion based on Marxism, Marxism-Leninism and similar revisions. Critique of topics not based on historical materialism belongs in the general Communism forum.
#14631607
No, he did not.


The prospect of "skipping," a capitalist republic was one that was reconcilable with both Uneven and Combined Development and Lenin's April Theses. The April Theses, related to DUC or not, was opposed initially by a majority of Bolsheviks (most especially Kamenev—who, as you noted, also disputed DUC).

But, again, this has almost nothing at all to do with Socialism in One Country.

I fail to see how a speech Kamenev gave at the session held by the Moscow Committee, enlarged by the active Party functionaries, and repeated at the session of the Communist fraction of the Trade Union Council, and at the conference of military functionaries, would lead you to believe I was trying to change the argument into what a creep Trotsky was.


Because it had nothing to do with Socialism in One Country.

As I see it, the whole argument against Lenin and the possibility of socialism in one country as part of the world revolutionary process revolves around uneven and combined development and the theory of permanent revolution.


In which case, Marx, Engels, and Lenin (who, as repeatedly pointed out and always conveniently ignored, all explicitly condemned the idea of socialism in one country) were all proponents of Uneven and Combined Development. Which is simply not true as the latter theory did not exist for most of them.

All of this is to obscure the fact that Socialism in One Country was not a Marxist concept before Bukharin and Stalin, and—most importantly—that there is no dialectical or material foundation for it at all. In fact, one has to throw Marx, Engels, and Lenin away to make it work. Which it didn't in actual history.

You're making a good try for it, but throwing dust in the air isn't answering any argument.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14631690
It is true that Marx used the term 'permanent revolution' but the theory is Trotsky's. Marx apologises for not having the space to develop it.

Marx, Class Struggles in France, Consequences of June 13, 1849  wrote:The scope of this exposition does not permit of developing the subject further.

fell upon the same conclusion Lenin later did in the April Theses.

On the contrary, Trotsky fell upon the same conclusion Lassalle did in 1849.

Trotsky, Chapter 4, '1905' wrote:From the events of 1848-49, Lassalle drew the unshakable conviction that 'no struggle in Europe can be successful unless, from the very start, it declares itself to be purely socialist'... But one thing is clear to us: victory is possible only along the path mapped out by Lassalle.

April Theses

"8. It is not our immediate task to “introduce” socialism, but only to bring social production and the distribution of products at once under the control of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies."

V. I. Lenin, The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution (a.k.a. The April Theses).

this has almost nothing at all to do with Socialism in One Country.

I beg to differ.

Trotsky ignores the fact that the development of the relations of production lags, and will lag, behind the development of the productive forces* and confuses the relations of production with their superstructural legal expression, making it very easy to dismiss the possibility of socialism in one country as part of the world revolutionary process.


* J. V. Stalin, Economic problems of socialism in the USSR.

declares itself to be purely socialist

Arguing from Marx, Moralising Criticism and Critical Morality:

It is not political power that determines property relations, as the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois democrats imagine, but, on the contrary, the character of political power itself depends on historically formed production relations (property relations) and the class structure of society thus created.

For no other reason than to imply Stalin was flawless and never did a thing wrong. A reverence we don't even extend to Marx.

Don't be silly. Of course he was not flawless, and did many things wrong, but as Lenin said "In order to learn to swim, it is necessary to get into the water".

Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks wrote:In order to understand, it is necessary empirically to begin understanding, study, to rise from empiricism to the universal. In order to learn to swim, it is necessary to get into the water
Last edited by ingliz on 12 Dec 2015 17:40, edited 1 time in total.
#14631804
I realize that you don't like Trotsky.

Nonetheless, none of this has anything to do with Socialism in One Country. Especially, it has nothing to do with Marx, Engels, and Lenin, who all said that Socialism in One Country was impossible.

And, as Kobe pointed out, they were following just basic dialectics; that, in fact, history has proven.

Trying to start a whole new argument about how much you dislike Trotsky, who had nothing to do with implementing Socialism in One Country, is nothing but an obvious act of desperation.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14631817
I realize that you don't like Trotsky.

I realise how besotted you are with Trotsky.

Nonetheless, none of this has anything to do with Socialism in One Country.

This is only true if you fixate on the 'final' victory of socialism. Socialism per se is not a question of the mutual dependency between states, but a historical form of social production and a question of relations between people within production. The 'final' victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible.
By Rich
#14631900
I have to say it would be interesting to read a history of Lenin and Trostky's relationship that wasn't written from a pro Stalin or a pro Trotsky or even a pro Lenin perspective. My impression is that they were never close after the Bolshevik / Menshevik split until the very end of Lenin's political life. The problem was that both liked to be top dogs. The movement was never really big enough for the two of them. Zinoviev, Kamanev and Stalin all accepted a position of subordination to Lenin which Trotsky wasn't willing to accept. Marxism always had an undemocratic spirit going back to its founder.
#14631924
I realise how besotted you are with Trotsky.


This, again, is a rather pathetic attempt to try and steer the conversation away from Socialism in One Country.

This is only true if you fixate on the 'final' victory of socialism. Socialism per se is not a question of the mutual dependency between states, but a historical form of social production and a question of relations between people within production. The 'final' victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible.


According to Marx, Engels, and Lenin, socialism isn't possible in one country at all, no matter what kind of qualifiers you put on it to try and redefine socialism.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14631993
no matter what kind of qualifiers you put on it to try and redefine socialism.

Lenin wrote:Socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people; by this token it ceases to be capitalist monopoly.

Lenin wrote: 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.

they were following just basic dialectics

"But there's always a bit of Dialectic to help out."

Marx to Engels

According to Marx

Marx on utopian doctrinaire socialism:

"... the coming historical process naturally appears to it as an application of systems which the thinkers of society, whether in companies or as individual inventors, devise or have devised. Thus they become the eclectics or adepts of the existing socialist systems, of doctrinaire socialism, which was the theoretical expression of the proletariat only as long as it had not yet developed further into a free historical movement of its own."


#14632191
Ingliz wrote:"But there's always a bit of Dialectic to help out."

Marx to Engels


Ingliz wrote:Marx on utopian doctrinaire socialism:


[quote=Marx]Yet manifold as the Socialism of the different large sections of the party of Anarchy was, according to the economic conditions and the total revolutionary requirements of the class or fraction of a class arising out of these, in one point it is in harmony: in proclaiming itself the means of emancipating the proletariat and the emancipation of the latter as its object. Deliberate deception on the part of some; self-deception on the part of the others, who promote the world transformed according to their own needs as the best world for all, as the realization of all revolutionary claims and the elimination of all revolutionary collisions.

Behind the general socialist phrases of the "party of Anarchy", which sound rather alike, there is concealed the Socialism of the "National", of the Presse, and the Siécle, which more or less consistently wants to overthrow the rule of the finance aristocracy and to free industry and trade from their hitherto existing fetters. This is the Socialism of industry, of trade, and of agriculture, whose bosses in the party of Order deny these interests, insofar as they no longer coincide with their private monopolies. Socialism-proper, petty-bourgeois Socialism, Socialism par excellence, is distinct from this bourgeois Socialism, to which, as to every variety of Socialism, sections of the workers and petty bourgeois naturally rally.

Capital hounds this class chiefly as its creditor, so it demands credit institutions; capital crushes it by competition, so it demands associations supported by the state; capital overwhelms it by concentration, so it demands progressive taxes, limitations on inheritance, taking over of large construction projects by the state, and other measures that forcibly stem the growth of capital. Since it dreams of the peaceful achievement of its Socialism — allowing, perhaps, for a second February Revolution lasting a brief day or so
the coming historical process naturally appears to it as an application of systems which the thinkers of society, whether in companies or as individual inventors, devise or have devised. Thus they become the eclectics or adepts of the existing socialist systems, of doctrinaire Socialism, which was the theoretical expression of the proletariat only as long as it had not yet developed further into a free historical movement of its own.

While this utopian, doctrinaire Socialism, which subordinates the total movement to one of its stages, which puts in place of common social production the brainwork of individual pedants and, above all, in fantasy does away with the revolutionary struggle of the classes and its requirements by small conjurers' tricks or great sentimentality, while this doctrinaire Socialism, which at bottom only idealizes present society, takes a picture of it without shadows, and wants to achieve its ideal athwart the realities of present society; while the proletariat surrenders this Socialism to the petty bourgeoisie; while the struggle of the different socialist leaders among themselves sets forth each of the so-called systems as a pretentious adherence to one of the transit points of the social revolution as against another — the proletariat rallies more and more around revolutionary Socialism, around Communism, for which the bourgeoisie has itself invented the name of Blanqui.[/quote]

Again, as long as you remove context you can make a confused attempt to obscure any kind of reason behind your opinion. In context, Marx is speaking of a specific event that, again, in fact invalidates the entire premise of Socialism in One Country. The French 1848 Revolution, in this case, could not constitute a socialism in a single country or instance.

To get more specific with what you weirdly placed, it was Marx complaining about people thinking their national economy could create some kind of national equivalent of socialism, and mocking them for it.

It actually invalidates your point in context.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14632238
To get more specific with what you weirdly placed

I was taking the piss, out of myself, Dialectic and your particular form of utopian doctrinaire socialism.

Lenin, New Events and Old Questions wrote:Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen individual attempts and cases of resistance, more important than a hundred organisations and “parties” belonging only to the intelligentsia.

Marx to Wilhelm Bracke, Letter, May 5, 1875 wrote:Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programmes.

in context.

And, no, in context, it was not Marx complaining about people thinking their national economy could create some kind of national equivalent of socialism, and mocking them for it.

Communist Manifesto wrote:Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

It was Marx mocking the belief that the socialist revolution was imminent.

Marx, The Defeat of June 1848 wrote:As soon as it has risen up, a class in which the revolutionary interests of society are concentrated finds the content and the material for its revolutionary activity directly in its own situation: foes to be laid low, measures dictated by the needs of the struggle to be taken; the consequences of its own deeds drive it on. It makes no theoretical inquiries into its own task. The French working class had not attained this level; it was still incapable of accomplishing its own revolution.

Confusingly, in an arguably less advanced Germany:

Marx To Engels In Manchester, 16 April 1856 wrote:The whole thing in Germany will depend on whether it is possible to back the Proletarian revolution by some second edition of the Peasants war. In which case the affair should go swimmingly.

According to Lenin, socialism isn't possible in one country at all

You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, and then start moving toward socialism? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical sequence of events are impermissible or impossible?

Napoleon, I think, wrote: "On s'engage et puis ... on voit." rendered freely this means: "First engage in a serious battle and then see what happens." Well, we did first engage in a serious battle in October 1917, and then saw such details of development (from the standpoint of world history they were certainly details) as the Brest peace, the New Economic Policy, and so forth. And now there can be no doubt that in the main we have been victorious.

Our Sukhanovs, not to mention Social-Democrats still farther to the right, never even dream that revolutions cannot be made any other way. Our European philistines never even dream that the subsequent revolutions in Oriental countries, which possess much vaster populations in a much vaster diversity of social conditions, will undoubtedly display even greater distinctions than the Russian Revolution.

It need hardly be said that a textbook written on Kautskian lines was a very useful thing in its day. But it is time, given that, to abandon the idea that it foresaw all the forms of development of subsequent world history. It would be timely to say that those who think so are simply fools.


Lenin, Our Revolution, January 17, 1923

According to Marx, socialism isn't possible in one country at all

Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann In Hanover wrote:World history would indeed be very easy to make, if the struggle were taken up only on condition of infallibly favorable chances. It would, on the other hand, be a very mystical nature, if “accidents” played no part. These accidents themselves fall naturally into the general course of development and are compensated again by other accidents. But acceleration and delay are very dependent upon such “accidents,” which included the "accident" of the character of those who at first stand at the head of the movement.

Marx and Engels:

Michael Löwy, The Politics of Combined and Uneven Development: The Theory of Permanent Revolution wrote:In a contradictory manner - sometimes literally side by side with stagist conceptions there appears the idea of permanent revolution: that is to say, the concept of an uninterrupted revolutionary process enabling the proletariat to overturn capitalism and maintain state power, even in the peripheral, backward and semi-feudal countries of Europe. I say 'idea' and not 'theory', because it is not possible to speak of a coherent and systematic theory of permanent revolution in Marx and Engels. Rather, there is a series of fragmentary conceptions, prophetic intuitions and inchoate perspectives, which intermittently appear and reappear but are never ordered in a rigorous doctrine or global strategy. Their importance is above all methodological: they show that Marx and Engels had admitted the objective possibility of a rupture in the succession of historical tasks; that these tasks have a complex, dialectical articulation; and that historical materialism - at least as practised in the writings of its founders - cannot be reduced to a metaphysical and economistic evolutionism.
#14632519
Ingliz wrote:your particular form of utopian doctrinaire socialism.




Ingliz, quoting Marx, wrote:the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle.


This in no way reverses Marx's conception of socialism being only possible on the world stage:

Marx wrote:Lassalle, in opposition to the Communist Manifesto and to all earlier socialism, conceived the workers' movement from the narrowest national standpoint. He is being followed in this -- and that after the work of the International!

It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle -- insofar as its class struggle is national, not in substance, but, as the Communist Manifesto says, "in form". But the "framework of the present-day national state", for instance, the German Empire, is itself, in its turn, economically "within the framework" of the world market, politically "within the framework" of the system of states. Every businessman knows that German trade is at the same time foreign trade, and the greatness of Herr Bismarck consists, to be sure, precisely in his pursuing a kind of international policy.

And to what does the German Workers' party reduce its internationalism? To the consciousness that the result of its efforts will be "the international brotherhood of peoples" -- a phrase borrowed from the bourgeois League of Peace and Freedom, which is intended to pass as equivalent to the international brotherhood of working classes in the joint struggle against the ruling classes and their governments. Not a word, therefore, about the international functions of the German working class! And it is thus that it is to challenge its own bourgeoisie -- which is already linked up in brotherhood against it with the bourgeois of all other countries -- and Herr Bismarck's international policy of conspiracy.

In fact, the internationalism of the program stands even infinitely below that of the Free Trade party.


Ingliz, citing Lenin wrote:Lenin, Our Revolution, January 17, 1923


Lenin makes it pretty clear in that work that he's assuming it'll be a world revolution, it's just that Russia can be legitimately lead a movement instead of France or Britain because capitalism is a world system:

Lenin, in the same work you cited, wrote:But what if the situation, which drew Russia into the imperialist world war that involved every more or less influential West European country and made her a witness of the eve of the revolutions maturing or partly already begun in the East, gave rise to circumstances that put Russia and her development in a position which enabled us to achieve precisely that combination of a "peasant war" with the working-class movement suggested in 1856 by no less a Marxist than Marx himself as a possible prospect for Prussia?

What if the complete hopelessness of the situation, by stimulating the efforts of the workers and peasants tenfold, offered us the opportunity to create the fundamental requisites of civilization in a different way from that of the West European countries? Has that altered the general line of development of world history? Has that altered the basic relations between the basic classes of all the countries that are being, or have been, drawn into the general course of world history?

If a definite level of culture is required for the building of socialism (although nobody can say just what that definite "level of culture" is, for it differs in every Western European country), why cannot we began by first achieving the prerequisites for that definite level of culture in a revolutionary way, and then, with the aid of the workers' and peasants' government and Soviet system, proceed to overtake the other nations?


Ingliz Cited wrote:Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann In Hanover


And yet I never said that the revolution couldn't start in Russia. Like Marx, Engels, and Lenin, I simply argue that socialism can't simply be declared in one country because socialism is the result of a dialectic process that must come from something—capitalism, itself a global system.

The Soviet Union, as Lenin said, was not socialist. It was not even a workers' state. It was a "workers' state with a bureaucratic twist."

Ingliz wrote:Michael Löwy


Despite whatever you imagine, my opposition to socialism in one country comes from Marx, Engels, and Lenin more than anyone else. Trying to throw the Trotskyist debate into everyone's eyes every other sentence has little to do with the argument at all.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14632596
Trying to throw the Trotskyist debate into everyone's eyes every other sentence has little to do with the argument at all.

I see no Trotskyist debate in my last post, only a Trotskyite making my point for me.

Michael Löwy wrote:the objective possibility

Anyway, according to Ernest Mandel, 'all Trotsky stated . . . was the fact that a fully-fledged socialist society, i.e. a society without classes, commodities, money and state, could never be accomplished within the boundaries of a single state'*, and on that we agree.


* New Left Review, no. 47, January-February 1968.
#14633356
TIG wrote:Despite whatever you imagine, my opposition to socialism in one country comes from Marx, Engels, and Lenin more than anyone else. Trying to throw the Trotskyist debate into everyone's eyes every other sentence has little to do with the argument at all.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14633560
Despite...

The only person trying to throw the Trotskyist debate into everyone's eyes every other sentence is you.

my opposition to socialism in one country

I am a Leninist. If I can get power, I will grab it. Once grabbed, I am not going to sit on my hands and do nothing.

revolution

We agree that:

1. The world revolution is not simultaneous.

2. National revolutions are national in form.

3. The proletariat, in alliance with the poor peasants, can lead a revolution in a backward semi-feudal state.

4. A socialist revolution must be permanent/uninterrupted.

and

5. A communist society, i.e. a society without classes, commodities, money and state, can never be accomplished within the boundaries of a single state.

What we seem unable to agree on is what socialism is. As to a socialist society within the boundaries of a single state, my ambitions are modest. I am quite happy to embrace state socialism and a society without classes, as was Engels, Lenin, and Stalin.

Erik van Ree, Boundaries of Utopia - Imagining Communism from Plato to Stalin wrote:According to Engels, it was the historical merit of the bourgeoisie to have centralised the fragmented feudal world into modern nations. Healthy development of the productive forces required national centralisation. Concentration of the means of production in the hands of the nation (nationalisation) would allow the proletariat to take this process one step further. In Engels view, the proletariat needed the nation as a civilising institution and as indispensable instrument to speed up economic development.

Lenin wrote:Socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people; by this token it ceases to be capitalist monopoly.

Lenin wrote: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.


* Erik van Ree is a Maoist
#14633700
The only person trying to throw the Trotskyist debate into everyone's eyes every other sentence is you.




I am a Leninist. If I can get power, I will grab it. Once grabbed, I am not going to sit on my hands and do nothing.


Did anybody suggest otherwise?

What we seem unable to agree on is what socialism is. As to a socialist society within the boundaries of a single state, my ambitions are modest. I am quite happy to embrace state socialism and a society without classes, as was Engels, Lenin, and Stalin.


This is ahistorical. Engels specifically said that there was no such thing as "state socialism:"

Engels wrote:But of late, since Bismarck went in for State-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious Socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkyism, that without more ado declares all State-ownership, even of the Bismarkian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the State of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism.


Lenin, as has been noted many times in this thread, specifically condemned everyone that tried to present the Soviet Union as socialist in form instead of ideology.

Stalin, yeah, Stalin did present the USSR as socialist.

And there may be an attempt to make this seem like a matter of pedantry, but there was a reason Engels and Lenin were so firm on the issue.

In the first, it's a matter of representing and analyzing reality correctly. Not being able to do so, breaks down any kind of dialectic or material basis and throws it all out the window.

In the second, it leads to all kinds of wacky places. For instance, the Connolly-DeLeon controversy had, in part, DeLeon advocating that everyone should act as if we live in a socialist society before a socialist society had even been attempted. This included speculation of what it would be like, for instance the "glass of water theory," that sex should be given away as one would give a guest a glass of water.

Connolly, correctly, thought this was insane. Lenin, when in charge of an ideologically socialist country, didn't like some of the social systems that were developing, but admitted that he was, "an old man," and it wasn't really his place to intervene in these spheres (hence marriages of three and four people; legalized homosexuality, etc). This is basic Marxism in that the material conditions will dictate the social.

Stalin, however, declared that there was a socialist system. In this way, he was like DeLeon declaring that there was a correct social code that had to be followed that was innately socialist. Stalin chose one more in keeping with his place as a Georgian studying to be a cleric and declared that socialism meant certain social conditions without the former having been formed.

This extended to art and everything else, where parts of life—instead of being dictated by material reality—was dictated by abstract ideology.

Finally, it led to all kinds of policies that even Stalin had to later admit were incorrect so far as keeping a "socialist" system in a national sphere. So an alliance with bourgeois countries against socialist revolution became viable. Something that would have been unthinkable for Lenin. The inevitable result was a the kind of "flunkyism" that Engels mocked, a "socialism" where, "Napoleon and Metternich" were its founders that ran itself into the ground and collapsed.

And, again, the underlining current is that it fundamentally causes a break with materialism in order to work since one is defending a definition and interpretation of reality instead of physical reality.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14633871
Engels specifically said that there was no such thing as "state socialism:"

Engels, Socialism Utopian and Scientific wrote:The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society - the taking possession of the means of production in the name of the state - this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then withers away of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not “abolished”. It withers away.

Socialised production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the state dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organisation, becomes at the same time the lord over nature, his own master – free. *


* Engels summarising his argument.

Lenin, as has been noted many times in this thread, specifically condemned everyone that tried to present the Soviet Union as socialist in form instead of ideology.

He would. When Lenin died on 21 January, 1924, Russia was not socialist in form.
#14634372
Again, I'm not sure what any of that has to do with SIOC. A lot of this often seems to come down to ad hom attacks on Trotsky for no good reason and attempting to redefine socialism and SIOC to mean something else entirely.

It's a bit of amazement for me I guess that we can't, as Marxists, just say when a theory went bad and have to dance around like mistakes are impossible.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14634377
Engels specifically said that there was no such thing as "state socialism:"

No, he did not. He said some people declare all State-ownership, even of the Bismarkian sort, to be socialistic, which is something entirely different.

ad hom attacks on Trotsky



attempting to redefine socialism

Lenin and Engels were attempting to redefine socialism?

Lenin wrote:Socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people; by this token it ceases to be capitalist monopoly.

Engels wrote:The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society - the taking possession of the means of production in the name of the state.

attempting to redefine SIOC

It seems that by 'building a complete socialist society' Stalin understood fundamentally the same thing, i.e. victory over the capitalist elements in our economy, in the strict sense (linked to the private ownership of the means of production).

But, if you do not believe me, why not read what Stalin had to say and make your own mind up.

Stalin, Questions and Answers, Speech Delivered at the Sverdlov University June 9, 1925

all proponents of Uneven and Combined Development. Which is simply not true as the latter theory did not exist for most of them.

Uneven and combined development in Marxian thought.

A summary of the process of uneven development, as a necessary aspect of capitalism, can be found in volume one of Capital. But thinking about uneven and combined development dates further back, at least to Marx's Grundrisse (1857-58), where unevenness represents the condition for a transition from one declining mode of production to another rising, more progressive mode.
#14635242
ingliz wrote:No, he did not. He said some people declare all State-ownership, even of the Bismarkian sort, to be socialistic, which is something entirely different.


This is not different since, again, he drew the same conclusion that you keep pretending that he did not:

Engels wrote: Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.


:lol:


Sorry, I should have added Strawman attacks. I bring up Lenin, Engels, and Marx. You attack Trotsky for no apparent reason at all.

Lenin and Engels were attempting to redefine socialism?


Absolutely not. Which is why they were consistent in saying that Socialism in One Country is impossible

You ignore their conclusions, and then take pieces out of context to try and support your own conclusion that is at odds with their own.

It seems that by 'building a complete socialist society' Stalin understood fundamentally the same thing, i.e. victory over the capitalist elements in our economy, in the strict sense (linked to the private ownership of the means of production).

...But, if you do not believe me, why not read what Stalin had to say and make your own mind up.


Exactly. He redefined the meaning of socialism and called his weird new definition, "fundamentally the same," even though it was clearly quite different.

It took me so long to respond since it's such a chore to read someone that writes like a high school sophomore that doesn't know the material and is trying to fill up space so he keeps stating the same thing over and over again. For example, right at the top:

Stalin wrote:What dangers are there of our Party degenerating as a result of the stabilisation of capitalism,
if this stabilisation lasts a long time?

Are we faced by such dangers at all? Such dangers, as possible and even real dangers, undoubtedly exist. They face us quite apart from stabilisation. Stabilisation merely makes them more palpable.


"What is the danger of the party that comes from stabilization of capitalism? Is there danger of the party that comes from stabilization of capitalism? There is danger of the party that comes from stabilization of capitalism. There are these dangers, and they come with stabilization. Stabilization is a part of these problems."

Ugh. Anyway, he doesn't even address the issue at all as he completely fails to take into account what socialism is. Marx, Engels, and Lenin never advocated to sit on their hands and do nothing as Stalin pretends those that oppose advocated. Lenin was, as quoted many times above, was clear that the Soviets needed to be honest with themselves and realize that they didn't live in socialism. Stalin implies the opposite--everyone accept that it's socialism now or else you're a, "liquidator," that is out there to harm everyone else.

One of the great harms he pretends they advocate is hilariously his own policy a little while later:

Stalin wrote:Support the liberation movement in China? But why? Wouldn't that be dangerous? Wouldn't it bring us into conflict with other countries? Wouldn't it be better if we established "spheres of influence" in China in conjunction with other "advanced" powers and snatched something from China for our own benefit? That would be both useful and safe. . . . Support the liberation movement in Germany? Is it worth the risk? Wouldn't it be better to agree with the Entente about the Versailles Treaty and bargain for something for ourselves by way of compensation?. . . Maintain friendship with Persia, Turkey and Afghanistan? Is the game worth the candle? Wouldn't it be better to restore the "sphere of influence" with one or other of the Great Powers? And so on and so forth.


From the mouth of the man that demanded the Chinese communists subordinate themselves to Khang Khi Chek, who whisked them away to death camps; the man that opposed being too aggressive against the fascists in Germany to the point of the infamous Red Referendum; the man that made an alliance with the French bourgousie; the man that liquidated the revolutionaries in Spain in the name of stabilizing the Spanish bourgeoisie...

...I'm not even saying that his frequent turns on issues were necessarily bad. If your theory sucks and you've failed, you do need to change things up. But to present an imaginary laundry list of things you accuse other people of doing, and then turn around and do each one of them is hilariously full of fail hardly does anything other than underline the bankruptcy of his theory.

Really, it was just written documentation of what I had already accused SIOC of leading to:

TIG wrote:Finally, it led to all kinds of policies that even Stalin had to later admit were incorrect so far as keeping a "socialist" system in a national sphere. So an alliance with bourgeois countries against socialist revolution became viable. Something that would have been unthinkable for Lenin. The inevitable result was a the kind of "flunkyism" that Engels mocked, a "socialism" where, "Napoleon and Metternich" were its founders that ran itself into the ground and collapsed.


Uneven and combined development in Marxian thought.

A summary of the process of uneven development, as a necessary aspect of capitalism, can be found in volume one of Capital. But thinking about uneven and combined development dates further back, at least to Marx's Grundrisse (1857-58), where unevenness represents the condition for a transition from one declining mode of production to another rising, more progressive mode.


So we agree that if we define Uneven and Combined Development that way::

TIG wrote:In which case, Marx, Engels, and Lenin (who, as repeatedly pointed out and always conveniently ignored, all explicitly condemned the idea of socialism in one country) were all proponents of Uneven and Combined Development.


If we restrict it to Trotsky, then we'd also agree:

Which is simply not true as the latter theory did not exist for most of them.


I can understand picking and choosing pieces of quotes to obscure fundamental truth if you thought I didn't have a handle on Marx or Lenin. It's weird to do that for my own quotes though.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Every accusation is a confession ... This is co[…]

The UCJ just ordered Israel to allow food aid . […]

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]

Candace Owens

... Too bad it's not as powerful as it once was. […]