From: rkunenbo@cs.ruu.nl (Ronald Kunenborg)
Subject: Re: Socialism, again (was Re: Derailing the Reagan...)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:46:34 GMT
Organization: Utrecht University, Dept. of Computer Science

In <1992Aug20.062025.21363@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:

>sj> Stephen Jascourt
>
>sj> Real socialists were saying all along, for many decades now, that those
>sj> countries [the communist ones] were *not* socialist.
>
>  Actually, a good many American and European socialists had a lot of good
>  things to say about the USSR during the '20s, '30s, '40s, and into the
>  '50s. Only in the last 25-30 years have European democratic socialists
>  greatly distanced themselves from Soviet-style totalitarian socialism.

True - but there were many good things to say of the USSR in the 20's.
Not any more in the 30's and 40's but in the 40's I remember even lots
of right-wing commentators being slightly "forgetful" of what Stalin had done
to the population.

Until the Stalinist faction got into power after the civil war, even Stalin
himself wrote that "socialism in one country is impossible". It is. Only when
the burocrats took power they needed to legitimize their rule by saying that
they "were building socialism in one country".

Many people believed it. Stalinists, Maoists, Titoists, democratic socialists
all took it for granted that socialism was being built in the USSR - despite
everything Lenin, Trostky and Marx had written about the impossibilities of
such a venture.

The fourth international, hounded as it was by "Democratic" governments on one
side, "Socialist" governments on the other, took the position that, even though
those states were worker's states, they were no longer under control of the workers.
This lead them to be the main critics of the USSR on the left during the Cold War.

Unfortunately, their perspective was flawed - unwilling to go beyond the literal text
of Trotsky, plagued by the murders of their best members, infiltrated by virtually every
secret service there was and cut off from the masses, they began to show more and more
signs of sectarianism. 

And most important of all: an unwillingness to re-evaluate the material position of
the ruling class in the USSR. Everything Trotzky had written was sacred - even when
Trotzky himself had been unsure of his own analysis and was on the verge of redoing it,
just before his death. Even when Trotzky's predictions did not come true.

Under those circumstances a new analysis was needed. And it was done in 1948.
"State Capitalism in Russia" appeared then. A Marxist explanation of the background
of the rise of the Russian ruling class. An analysis of their position in relation 
to the working class. And much more.

Since then, the IS Tendency has always and consistently been arguing that a) the USSR
is a state-capitalist state. b) It must be overthrown by the workers just as other
capitalist states. And much more ofcourse, but too much to mention here.

So yes, Stalinists and reformists had a lot of good things to say of the USSR. Partly
because of lack of knowledge at first, partly because of their (non)analysis of the
Russian state. And reformists just as well.
But not all socialists (and certainly almost no revolutionary socialists) were
uncritical of the USSR.

>sj> The term socialism is filled with mythologies created by both the western
>sj> capitalist states and the Soviet-block state capitalists.
>
>  Did you happen to get this "state capitalism" stuff from Gordon Fitch? In
>  any case, since there were no capitalists in the Soviet bloc (the commu-
>  nists killed most of them) I don't see how you can call that system any
>  kind of "capitalist" system. Kind of like a socialist system with no
>  socialists in it. The people have to be there.

It's definetely not neccessary to have individual capitalists for a state-capitalist
state to exist. Capitalism means that some class exploits another class to reinvest in
means of production (put very simple) and compete with other capitalists in order to survive.
A state can do this just as easily as an individual - many capitalist states have at one time
or another been partly or wholly state-capitalist states.

South-Korea, for instance. Or Japan after WW2. Or Italy, Sweden, Greece etc. 
Are these states not capitalist states?

>sj> The Soviet bloc countries did not empower the masses nor did it make
>sj> decisions for their benefit and well-being. 
>  Totalitarians tend to do that.
>
>sj> Its policies were not one of socialism.
>
>  *Democratic* socialism, no, totalitarian socialism, yes.

Socialism means control of the workers over their own state and in the last analysis
a withering away of the state. Totalitarian socialism is a contradiction in terms.
The onliest socialism you can have is one with total democracy. Anything else is
a farce.

>sj> An centralized economy controlled by the state is not what socialism is
>sj> all about.
>
>  It's not what it's *all* about, however, between 1917 and 1990, it was a
>  big part of what socialism was about.

In that case, many capitalist countries were just as "socialist". Centralized
economies are no distinctive feature of either socialism of capitalism - it
can exist under any system.

>sj> Socialism is about determining production and modes of production accord-
>sj> ing to the needs of society with fair and equal input by all members of
>sj> that society,
>
>  Sort of like one dollar from Ross Perot is the same as one dollar from, say,
>  Steve Jascourt? Why not let supply and demand do the work, instead of all
>  these tiresome little committees guessing what's best? A dollar is a kind
>  of vote, isn't it? BTW, those who have lots of "votes" are generally "out-
>  voted" by lots of people with fewer votes. That's why there's lots of
>  Toyota Tercels and Ford Escorts out there, and only a few Rolls-Royces.

I don't think you quite understood what he meant. "From each according to
ability, to each according to need". And not decided by little committees, but
by the people themselves.

>  Lastly, is it "fair" that nurses make a lot less money than Michael Jor-
>  dan? Nurses save people's lives, Jordan is there simply for entertainment.
>  Would people suffer if he wasn't around? I doubt it.
>
>sj> and in a practical sense would work best with most things determined on
>sj> a highly decentralized organization so that people have the most control
>sj> over things that affect them most directly. 
>
>  Sounds more like libertarianism to me. So far, your "definition" hasn't been
>  too specific.
>
>  What I wonder is how this decentralized system, bereft of any pricing sys-
>  tem or the input from supply and demand, can generate complicated things
>  like jet aircraft, or millions of simple things like calculators (enough
>  so that everyone who wants one can get one.)

Simple. At first production of these things would continue because people had to 
eat etc. and therefore had to earn wages. Socialism isn't achieved overnight.
Later on, when production of boring things would be automated, when people would
no longer be forced to work but could do whatever work they liked, people would
want to create things like that.

For one instance, if I'd have to possibility and training to design a better computer
than the one I'm using now I'd immediately do it. Assembly etc. could be automated and
resources could be allocated - if people wanted better computers they could vote for
allocation of resources into building my computer.

Ofcourse, this is a great simplification of what socialism is about.

>--
>Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
>strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF

regards,
-- 
Ronald Kunenborg, Ina Boudier-Bakkerlaan 89-3, 3582 XD Utrecht, The Netherlands

        "I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom
	      and democracy, but that could change." - Dan Quayle
Xref: sparky alt.activism:14913 misc.headlines:5649 alt.desert-storm:1700 talk.politics.misc:40080