Phred wrote:Quote Daft Punk:
"No country has ever been socialist."
Really? I guess that could be the case, since no country has ever been 100% scrupulously Laissez-faire Capitalist either. The USA is the country that came closest to 100% Capitalism, even if only for a while. Of which country could the same be said on the Socialist side? What is the Socialist analog of early USA?
I've always been curious about Socialists' views on this question. Would you guys help satisfy my curiosity by answering the following question?
Stipulating that no country has yet been 100% scrupulously Socialist, which country in your opinion came closest to that ideal, in the same way that early USA came closes to the Capitalist ideal? Have there been any others? Have there been enough that you could list in order of fidelity to the Socialist ideal, say, half a dozen or so in descending rank? I pose these questions not just to daft punk, but to all Socialists who have been reading this thread. I'd like very much to compare and contrast the lists you each come up with. It should be an interesting exercise.
Sorry, no, you are on the wrong track with this line of thinking. This is not the way to get your head around the actual reality.
First lets deal with capitalism. Anyone with two eyes and some sort of brain knows that there can never be pure capitalism. Capitalists need a state to defend their wealth. The need government for all sorts of reasons, bailouts, subsidies, taxes, import tariffs and so on. Capitalists are always tied to some national state or other. But its is still capitalism whether it is Norway or America. Whether it is neoliberalism or a more social democratic model. The capitalists are still the ruling class.
There has never remotely been a socialist country. In 1922 Lenin said they had not even built the foundations of socialism, and that it would be their children or grandchildren who built socialism. He also said that socialism could not be built in one country in isolation, especially a backward one like Russia. In fact before 1917 the Bolsheviks never even considered a socialist revolution in Russia, they were still STAGISTS. Except Trotsky.
In 1917 they had a revolution which attempted socialism. It headed in the right direction, but remained isolated. Socialism was therefore impossible, and inevitably the revolution degenerated. By 1928 it was at a turning point, capitalism was threatening restoration, but Stalin had set up a cushy number for himself and the middle class bureaucrats who were administering Russia. So he collectivised. Nothing to do with socialism, everything to do with self preservation.
So, in the late 20s, there was a gradual shift from an attempt at socialism, to hostility to it. Socialism has to be democratic, and there was no way Stalin was going to have that. 1928-34 was the Third Period in which events partially just described pushed Stalin into a pseudo-left position. It ended when the wrong policies of the Comintern led to the annihilation of the German working class. In 1936, Stalin was working 100% against socialism globally. He crushed the Spanish revolution, and he killed all the socialists in Russia.
He said this
Howard : Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?
Stalin : We never had such plans and intentions.Interview Between J. Stalin and
Roy Howard
(On March 1, 1936, Comrade Stalin granted an interview to
Roy Howard, President of Scripps-Howard Newspapers.)
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... /03/01.htmThe Eastern European countries plus Vietnam etc and China were supposed to go CAPITALIST. It was Stalin's attempts at securing capitalism in these countries which failed, often because capitalism was simply not viable, or the masses rejected the capitalists (who had collaborated with colonial rulers or the Nazis and Japanese etc). In Poland most of the capitalists had been killed by the Nazis. There was huge pressure from the masses. In every case the communists had led the resistance or national liberation struggle. Coalition governments with capitalists were attempted and failed. The Marshall Plan was supposed to secure capitalism in Eastern Europe, but backfired. Eventually Truman started the cold war so he could intervene militarily in Greece. Stalin's plan to sabotage the revolution had failed (Russia was one of the few countries to recognise the so-called Royalist government, which actually only controlled a small part of the country).
So in terms of % socialist, Russia was heading in the right direction for the very difficult few years up to the mid 20s and then the revolution slipped into neutral and eventually reverse gear.
The closest other revolution was probably the Allende government in Chile, but I think he was a bit of a Stalinist and so inevitably cocked that one up.
Nicaragua was never socialist, but the Sandinistas did have a go, and even managed to hold elections.
Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, Cuba and N Korea were supposed to be capitalist, in line with TWO STAGE THEORY, but capitalism failed and they slipped into a Stalinist model.
Cuba was not organised by Stalinists. I have a separate thread on that.
Russia was a degenerated workers state. All the others were deformed workers states (they did not degenerate as they were born deformed)
vera politica wrote:Phred,
The majority of Marxists and socialists would not agree with Daft Punk on many issues -- this being yet another one of them. That no country has never been socialist is preposterous and you need not engage in a quarrel over this fact.
Nonsense. I dont know how old you are or what country you live in, but in the UK only a few old men would disagree with me. I hate to shatter your life long Stalinist illusions, but it has to be done, because your (Stalinist) views got millions and millions of people killed.
I'm sure there is plenty to discuss on this issue, and I have all the facts I need, even against experienced (brainwashed) Stalinists.
I really only need to say two things, Popular Frontism and Two Stage Theory. A quick google will reveal all.
How about we discuss why stalin backed the KMT up to 1948?
Or how Stalinist policies got a million people slaughtered in Indonesia in 1965?
How Stalin tried to stop revolution in every single country which went 'communist'. (except the Baltic states which were annexed).
Phred wrote:Vera Politica wrote:
The majority of Marxists and socialists would not agree with Daft Punk on many issues -- this being yet another one of them. That no country has never been socialist is preposterous and you need not engage in a quarrel over this fact.
My bad. It was careless of me to presume that just because someone represents himself as a Socialist, he actually fits the necessary criteria. Seriously... I am not being facetious or sarcastic here, I really did make an unwarranted assumption that daft punk's Socialist credentials were unchallenged.
However, I am still anxious to learn which countries come/came closest to meeting the Socialist prerequisites. Clearly, if it is preposterous to say no country has ever been Socialist, then it logically follows that at least one country must be Socialist, or at the minimum must have been Socialist for at least some part of its history. Accordingly, let me modify my request to this -
Which countries in your opinion can/could properly be called Socialist? If there is just one which meets/met all the essential prerequisites, could you note it but also list a few others which come/came closest to meeting all the prerequisites? I pose these questions not just to Vera Politica or daft punk, but to all Socialists who have been reading this thread.
Phred
Dude, are you quite young? I have been a Marxist for nearly 30 years. I suspect vera is an old bloke. Nobody takes a blind bit of notice of Stalinism these days, not in the west anyway. They are like dinosaurs. They are apologists for a monstrous regime.
In 1936 Stalin said that all the original Bolsheviks who had led the revolution were now working for the fascists and capitalists. It is so crazy, you couldn't make it up. While Trotsky was making his speech In Defence of October, Stalin was accusing him of trying to restore capitalism. It's kinda like watching a creationist argue with a qualified geologist. Stalin killed all the socialists in Russia because he was running an unstable, rotten regime, and he was worried that the masses might one day insist on real socialism.
Of the original Bolshevik Central Committee, about 2 survived Stalin, Kollantai purely because she was in Norway and was needed, one bloke who was a friend of Stalin, and thats it. All the rest were shot
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/ev ... c-1917.jpgIn fact not only did Stalin kill all the socialists in Russia, he killed all their families too, to be sure.
A good book has come out on this
http://www.amazon.com/1937-Stalins-Vadi ... 0929087771Review
1937: Stalin's Year of Terror is the first major study by a Russian Marxist historian of the most tragic and fateful year in the history of the Soviet Union. Possessing an encyclopedic knowledge of Soviet source material, including archival documents that have only recently been released, Professor Vadim Rogovin presents a detailed and penetrating analysis of the causes, impact and consequences of Stalin's purges. Rogovin demonstrates that the principal function and aim of the terror was the physical annihilation of the substantial socialist opposition to Stalin's bureaucratic regime. Moreover, Rogovin places at the very center of this historical tragedy the crucial political figure whom most contemporary historians tend, for various ideological reasons, to ignore: Leon Trotsky. Rogovin insists that it is impossible to understand the purges apart from Stalin's determination to stamp out all vestiges of Trotsky's influence which, despite years of repression, had remained a powerful current with considerable support and revolutionary potential within the USSR. Although the first to be translated into the English language, 1937: Stalin's Year of Terror is the fourth volume in a projected six-volume history of the political conflicts within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist International between 1922 and 1940. Five volumes of this series have already been published, to steadily growing acclaim, in Russia. The sixth volume will be completed before the end of 1998. All six volumes will be translated into English and published by Mehring Books. --wsws.org
Product Description
The first major study by a Russian Marxist Historian of the Stalinist purges which are often collectively reffered to by the year they reached their greatest intensity: 1937. Rogovin shows that the purges were aimed at the physical annihilation of the growing socialist opposition to Stalin's bureaucratic regime. Focused on Leon Trotsky and his thousands of supporters, the purges were a blow against the October Revolution, its leaders and its heritage. This is the fourth volume of Rogovin's seven-volume series, Was There an Alternative?
Proper review here:
http://www.socialismtoday.org/134/rogovin.htmlStalin’s one-sided civil warYou can even read it on Google Books.