Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Marxist Socialism? Not even once.

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 5
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Mar 2016, 17:35
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 06 Mar 2016, 19:18
I'd like to hear why M-Ls and other people who like to collect Soviet flags, militeria and badges consider China, the DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, etc., to be socialist currently or ever. China has business contracts with the government out the ass, the DPRK is some creepy necrocratic monarchy that appears dangerously close to fascism with all its "self-reliance" bullshit, and Vietnam and Laos are just your average mixed economy authoritarian states. I see no reason to call these places socialist by the Marxist definition or any definition of the word.

Surely the fact none of these countries have a socialist mode of production and in some cases barely resemble socialism at all (i.e. DPRK) would point to the failure of attempting to have Socialism in One Country as a viable principle because in every instance capitalist reforms have occurred or the state has just been thrust into utter poverty. Obviously I don't think Ho Chi Minh, Guevara, Lenin, etc. should have sat on their ass living under imperialist capitalist states in the third world under awful regimes, but in the case of the USSR it seems clear the revolution needed to be expropriated elsewhere to survive, and while I can see how the USSR was a dictatorship of the proletariat at one time and build on socialist principles I don't see how the working class ever held power in Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, etc., as they had done from 1917-1924.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 07 Mar 2016, 08:42
Your statement proves that you have absolutely no understanding of what socialism and fascism are. Socialism is a system in which the main means of production are in the hands of the state. Fascism, on the contrary, is the most reactionary form of monopoly capitalism. The means of production are in the hands of private capitalist monopolies. Indeed, during the 1930's, the government that privatized the most was Nazi Germany.

As Lenin said: "Socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly."

In North Korea, the means of production are controlled by the state. Unless you can challenge this fact, it's obvious that North Korea is a socialist state.

But you adopt a bourgeois anti-marxist point of view. Instead of wondering who owns the means of production and what is the economic structure of a country, you analyze the forms of governement, which has been the tradition of the reactionary thought since Plato, and you come to this simple-minded conclusion: "the DPRK is some creepy necrocratic monarchy".
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 5
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Mar 2016, 17:35
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 07 Mar 2016, 22:05
Even the base definitions of socialism that you can find on Google say otherwise:

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

OR

"(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism."

Of course Marxism has advocated for a workers' state, but the state owning some means of production means nothing. Fascism uses the state to basically put the private capital of industrialists under its control. State capitalism is a type of economics, where the state runs the means of production but under capitalist principles. The state is not some kind of inevitably socialist body. Mode of production doesn't suddenly equal socialism; North Korea's "Juche" nonsense is utterly ethnonationalist and chauvinistic, and the state bureaucrats run the MOP, not the workers. You can't really say an CPC members are on the same level or at the same level of relation to the means of production, because they clearly aren't. Besides which, big business and industry is absolutely rife in the "Peoples'" Republic of China, with Steve Jobs of Apple claiming that America needed to lower its labour regulations to that of China in an interview. It doesn't matter whether capitalists inhabit the Kremlin or the World Trade Centre; if they are controlling capitalist in a manner that is private and based on profit, which is certainly true in China at least, then how are they socialist? Socialist IS more than Mode of Production. There is no way Marx nor Lenin would be caught dead in the DPRK or China claiming them to be pinnacles of his socialist dream, or anywhere close.
lev
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 256
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Jan 2016, 14:43
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 08 Mar 2016, 03:34
If you are tied to an 8-hour tedious and aggravating job of manufacturing or assembling products or processing meat in factories where peeing twice a day would probably cause your wrongful dismissal, you will eat what you just wrote, communist mutant. Happiness in the workplace relieves workers of stress and anxiety. Socialism is a prime mover of camaraderie and comradeship in the socialist workplace compared to capitalist manufacturing plants where everyone is suspicious of the others' motives because of trade union disputes that cause impairments of friendships and the like. Banners and slogans extolling workers' achievements no matter how tiresome work were in building dams or digging trenches or irrigation dikes are very very inspirational and do not alienate workers. They feel important. As prominent members of society, they are proud that their work is meaningful in the eyes of society and their leaders.
Fidel Castro and Kim Jong Un have not failed in these!
Last edited by lev on 08 Mar 2016, 14:29, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 08 Mar 2016, 09:36
Your understanding of Socialism, Communist Mutant, is once again completely anti-Marxist and bourgeois. You describe socialism as Marx's "dream", but for Marx socialism wasn't a "dream" (utopian socialism). It was the necessary evolution of the economic system of the 19th century. And so it became like that in North Korea. Whether you like it or not, whether it corresponds to your "dream" or not, is irrelevant. Socialism is a mode of production and nothing more.

The state is not a class on its own. It can only serve a class. And so the fascist state didn't controlled the capitalist monopolies, it was created by the German and foreign capitalists to control the German people and break the Communist movement. Here are, for exemple, evidences on the huge amount of foreign capitalist investments in Nazi Germany, even American investments during the war:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060520151 ... sungR2.pdf

Read the appendix: Investment of U.S. Companies in Germany 1943.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 08 Mar 2016, 09:58
Firstly, and most importantly, a matter of decorum Comrade OP-B. "Say hi & be nice to me!" is the mandated form for addressing any new members. Especially considering how few we have these days please remember this.
Communist Mutant wrote:
I'd like to hear why M-Ls and other people who like to collect Soviet flags, militeria and badges consider China, the DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, etc., to be socialist currently or ever.

Collecting Soviet, Maoist, or other various ICM memorabilia is a silly past-time (as well as a poor use of personal income) but there is nothing inherently wrong with it. It is also not something only Marxist-Leninists engage in.
And in order:
    1. China had a socialist revolution following their war of National Liberation against the British, Japanese, and collaborationist KMT. The CP of the PRC was, and still claims to be, on a path of socialist construction which was actually quite radical until the rise of Deng. Socialist in essence, capitalist in practice.
    2. The DPRK is the mutated remains of the revolutionary Korean people. On the verge of winning their war of national liberation against the Japanese (and their collaborationist segments of the Korean bourgeoisie [aka the literal leadership of South Korea ever since WW2]) the Americans entered the war to create an Asian beachhead and cut off the Soviet monopoly over Asia. Apparently killing a whole third of their population has some real long reaching psychological results. Socialist, however nationalist, effective Militarist capitalism geared towards defensive war.
    3. Vietnam was a legitimate socialist nation that has been on a policy of "guided capitalism" where socialist construction will supposedly occur when advanced capitalism (and its level of productive forces) has been achieved. To their credit there is no reason to not believe them. Socialist Capitalism is a lot easier to move to socialism than just plain old capitalism.
    4. Laos legitimately sucks, and is more like Cambodia or Romania than its other Asian cousins. I don't know any communist org that actually promotes Socialist Laos.
Communist Mutant wrote:
China has business contracts with the government out the ass,

So? Engels owned a factory. Marxists do not reject Capitalism on moral grounds, or rather we do not consider the practice of capitalism to be a corrupting influence. Capitalism is a system, and as such can be controlled with a systemic approach (hence the need for authoritarianism).
Communist Mutant wrote:
the DPRK is some creepy necrocratic monarchy that appears dangerously close to fascism with all its "self-reliance" bullshit,

I don't even want to get into why using monarchy in this sense only makes sense if from an imperialist vantage. But then I notice you do like hyperbole (lol necrotic? Their leader is one of the youngest in the world) so I'll ride with it.
Also Autarky is a concept fascists latched onto not one they created. Self-Reliance on a national level is potentially a viable avenue for total resistance to Imperialism. Actual autarky would be a fairly amazing accomplishment though.
Communist Mutant wrote:
and Vietnam and Laos are just your average mixed economy authoritarian states. I see no reason to call these places socialist by the Marxist definition or any definition of the word.

I mean if history is meaningless to you as well as culture I could see how this would make sense. I wholeheartedly disagree however.
Communist Mutant wrote:
Surely the fact none of these countries have a socialist mode of production and in some cases barely resemble socialism at all (i.e. DPRK) would point to the failure of attempting to have Socialism in One Country as a viable principle because in every instance capitalist reforms have occurred or the state has just been thrust into utter poverty.

SiOC is an overblown concept. It is presented as though we would choose one nation of socialism over actual world revolution. Which is just lols. I mean dude think about it, how is the Soviets supporting Communists in Korea “socialism in one country”?
Communist Mutant wrote:
Obviously I don't think Ho Chi Minh, Guevara, Lenin, etc. should have sat on their ass living under imperialist capitalist states in the third world under awful regimes, but in the case of the USSR it seems clear the revolution needed to be expropriated elsewhere to survive, and while I can see how the USSR was a dictatorship of the proletariat at one time and build on socialist principles I don't see how the working class ever held power in Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, etc., as they had done from 1917-1924.

Of course no nation has ever come as close to genuinely turning the clock forward to socialism as the Soviets did. But just because a socialist movement did not get as far does not disqualify it. And we gain nothing from dismissing our comrades over their failures.
Also it is interesting that you listed the period where the USSR was most under the New Economic Policy which is literally when the Soviets were “average mixed economy authoritarian states”. Stalin did most of the actual building the Lenin had already laid the groundwork for.

Welcome to the Empire C. Mutant.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 08 Mar 2016, 13:10
This is my bad English comrade Dagoth, you know that.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 5
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Mar 2016, 17:35
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 08 Mar 2016, 14:53
Dagoth Ur wrote:
(lol necrotic? Their leader is one of the youngest in the world)


I don't have time to reply to your message in full at the moment but I would like to point out that the current leader of North Korea is Kim-il Sung, with Kim Jong-il as the General Secretary of the CP. So they are necrocratic in the literal sense of the word.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 208
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2009, 19:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 09 Mar 2016, 09:25
Actually, from what I am research, Slavery, Monopoly Capitalism and Socialism are all modes of production suitable for employing mass laborers and large-scale production, so many historians cannot differentiate them. That why many people said that Stalin era of Soviet Union or North Korea were just state capitalism or modern slavery, but that's outright wrong.

Slavery is suitable when you want to build something big or mass-produce something, but the dominant type of labor is individualistic (for example, farming). So the slave-lords and ancient nobles forced many people into slavery (control all their labor power) or forced them to work on "public works" (like temples, pyramids, palaces). Slavery is a contradiction because people want to work for their own ass but the lords want them to work for his own. The contradiction can be resolved by advancing to Feudal mode of production or returning to Socialism (ancient). Slavery maybe similar to Capitalism, but actually, it is the inverted Capitalism.

Capitalism is happening when the dominant type of labor is collective, for example, the making of an Airbus airplane need joint effort of many factories across EU, but the mean of productions belong to private ownership of the capitalists. Workers are allowed to use the means of production by making profit for the capitalists. The main contradiction of capitalism is not that it exploit workers, but because it prevent workers to work (it creates unemployment, why slavery creates forced over-employment). For example, people want to build a new hospital and school, training new doctors and teachers in order to make living standard higher, but the capitalists will not invest because it doesn't make huge profit for him. This contradiction can be resolved by returning to Feudalism or advancing to Socialism, hence the saying "Socialism or Barbarism".

Socialism is the mode of production when the dominant type of labor is collective and people are working for their collective interest, not for the lords' consumption or the capitalists' profit. Like Feudalism, Socialism is stable and expected to exist for a very long time, until there is a huge change in the way people work (a.k.a. force of production). Change in Feudalistic and Socialistic society is usually reformist in nature, and therefore, create an illusion of never-ending order. Philosophy is forgot, while people believe confidently in their future.

Hence, Capitalism and Slavery is just the transition stages between Socialism and Feudalism. New philosophies are often born during Slavery and Capitalism because the old belief of old society are not true anymore and people need a new way to explain new situations. We have Slavery when Feudalism is the future, or Capitalism when Socialism is the future.

From the above analysis (of mine), we can say with confidence that the Soviet Union is Socialist, not Capitalist, Slavery, or Feudal at all. What matter is not which form of state, but how people work and what cause they work for.
"Stalin brought us up — on loyalty to the people, He inspired us to labor and to heroism!" Soviet Anthem 1944.
Let's work hard and do valorous deed!
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 10 Nov 2017, 20:24
Quote:
Socialist, however nationalist, effective Militarist capitalism

Quote:
Socialist ... capitalism


wut
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 2
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Dec 2017, 03:52
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 01 Jan 2018, 19:06
Question for Engelsist, or anyone:

Is building the Airbus in the example going to serve a public interest? In other words, Do people want to fly?
Do the laborers deserve pay?

Would the laborers work without pay if you told them they were no longer serving a greedy capitalist but the public good?

If not, how would you get the Airbus built?
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.