Fri, Feb. 4th, 2005, 06:09 pm
and so I do what I do and at least I exist what could mean more than this? What would mean more?
I'm reading a book on the Psychology of Art by a Soviet psychologist, Lev, who uses historical materialism to explain the emotional impact of 'art', rather than using metaphysical phraseology. It's interesting. Might as well Marxify everything ;)
Sun, Jan. 23rd, 2005, 09:47 pm
My previous article was incorrect. Kruschev's idea of amalgamating state farms and collective farms was progressive. He was born of a peasant family. His right wing deviations were in terms of his slight economic reforms, some mild decentralisations which were reversed under Brezhnev and his foreign policy.
Sam Marcy quoted Andryevea, supporting Stalin, in Perestroika. His Trotskyist deviations force him to criticize her, yet, apparently he didn't read her quote which simply read people "reform" Socialism (i.e. slowly restore capitalism) under the name of "Destalinization." Apparently he didn't realize this and ranted about the crimes of Stalin and what not. It's upsetting.
Trotsky was an evil, evil man whose counter-revolutionary deeds surpasses those of Gorbachev. From terrorizing the Mine Workers, endangering foreign policy, massacring an entire Red Army battalion in Odessa, openly revealing "Stalinists" in the HUAC in USA, etc. It's time to bury this man and his awful devious legacy forever.
And yet, even though I disagree with Sam Marcy on that point, party discipline is important and I uphold it.
So, what prompted Kruschev to make that speech? I think there lies the fundamental contradiction of 'Socialism.' While that hasn't been revealed, Kruschev came from a peasant background. If one remembers what Marx said about the Bonapartist Dictatorship of Louis Bonaparte during the French Revolution, he was a representative of all classes, but, primarily, representative of the Upper Peasants who backed feudalist tradition over capitalism. Capitalism always ravages peasantry as peasants are drawn into industry and the mechanization of agriculture is completed (As Upper Peasants were simply feudal lords earlier in history.) However, limited Capitalism, what people call "State Capitalism" or N.E.P. policy towards agriculture allows Upper Peasants to sustain their positions and lower peasants to make profits off small plots. Socialization of Agriculture (under Stalin, but, not Mao, he corrected 80% of the issues.) does two things (1) Eliminates middle and upper peasants (2) Eliminates some form of private plots. This affects the entire stratum of peasants. Peasant ideology is geared towards individual production and profit, not towards socialization, the peasant looses less freedom under Socialism (as compared to Capitalism), yet, those small freedoms are eroded during rapid industrialization, which similarly brings peasants into industry and so on. While Mao might say there is a Dictatorship of Workers and Peasants, in reality Workers interests dictate the entire process, with Peasant interests on the sidelines. This is not to say I abandon Socialism or disapprove of the policies Stalin or Mao (infact Mao all most solved this problem) -- however it just seems necessary to grasp the fact that usually Peasants and Workers have fundamentally different interests which are irreconciable in most cases (except during Mao, but, I have yet to study his flaws on agricultural policy, but, using my current knowledge, he seemed to have the best ideas and implementation of collectivization.)
So, I believe, and this has to be researched, don't take my word for it, Kruschev was more a representative of Peasant Ideology than Worker Ideology, yet, had to satisfy both ideologies as the Working class had developed in Russia. His solution was the Osckar Lange/Liebermann reforms which reintroduced small private plots and rejuvenated middle peasants, which brought temporary stability until Gorbachev, again, a representative of the Peasants as he came from a peasant family AND was a deputy on the Agricultural Development committe, sidelined Working Class interests for more privatization in agriculture. (His first step, then came the notorious 'Perestroika.', restructuring of socialist industry.)
So, this, I believe, prooves that even Revisionism is still socialism, under Kruschev, Brezhnev ,and partly Gorbachev a planned economy still existed, the Workers very much 'controlled' the state but were dragged down by Peasant ideology for practical reasons. Only a sound policy of integrating peasantry into a socialist economy (like Mao's) can prevent outright Capitalist restoration from occuring.
In Mao, when Deng, also similarly representative of Peasantry, abolished the Commune and the Chinese collective farm (koholz), he solved this problem by _entirely_ privatizing agriculture. While this is not a good policy (Mao's was certainly more equitable.), it did eliminate peasant resistance. Deng essentially divided China into the Peasant "Capitalist" (I would prefer "Market", they aren't "Capitalists" in the traditional sense) and Chinese Socialism. This is kind of like a new form of the "National Question", but, instead of dealing with oppressed races, dealing with historically oppressed classes, Peasants, who cannot be nearly as liberated as the working class can under Socialism.
Peasants are historically exploited. Peasants are exploited under Capitalism, less so under Socialism when the right policy is applied. This is where Revisionism comes from. Only rapid mechanization of Agriculture can resolve this contradiction, which I believe is _the most_ fundamental contradiction of Socialism. When resolved, the intensity of class struggle under Socialism will be reduced to a simply a matter of combating bourgeois ideology rather than an actual class struggle against Peasantry.
All right. Well, Socialism means workers own the means of production. Well, I understand that. But, what seems to be lacking is a thorough, mathematical and quantitative description of "Socialism." Engles laid out a ten step program for Socialism which includes things like massive nationalization, elimination of commodity production (in the capitalist sense), etc. Yet, no Socialist leader, not even Mao who came the closest, has implemented all of these. So, Engles' idea of what 'Socialism' is seems nearly impssible, all Socialist societies past and present have used limited market mechanisms, some more than others, this is why Mao started to hate the Soviet union because Kruschev denounced Stalin, first of all, and implemented Libermann economic reforms on price (where the equilibrium price for goods is set by supply and command.) Well, that didn't turn out so well and Brezhnev reversed most of it.
Well, what are the types of Socialism? Well there's Anti-Revisionist Socialism, where the DPRK comes the closest to attaining (they satisfy about 70% of Engles' requirements). There's Kruschev-Brezhnev style Socialism which Cuba implements very well (but each year they abandon some of Libermann's reforms, just recently they recentralized the hotel industry and abandoned the dollar.) Market Socialism which is basically Kruschev-Brezhnev Socialism + Foreign Investment (This was also Yugoslavia's Socialism) and Mao's Socialism, which is a part of Anti-Revisionist socialism but is more advanced because of the Cultural Revolution, which failed in its original task to prevent Revisionism but at least succeeded in preventing outright capitalist restoration.
Now, all American commies are in a buzz (the stupid ones) debating whether X country is Socialist or not. And I think it's important to figure that out. I think all the above countries are Socialist but I'm not sure why, legally it stipulates workers control over production, but, in China it's sort of hazy as to who controls what. It requires more research and statistics then I have access to at the moment while I'm writing this.
So, is something not Socialist because it has market reforms? No. I don't think so. But, I don't know why.
So, is something not Socialist because it allows foreign investment? No. As long as foreign investment doesn't take the place of the planned economy.
Well, see, as I answered, "I don't think so." This seems to be a void in Marxist theory. I think it can be answered by foreign policy, however. How do the foreign policies of the Worker's States advance the Struggle for Socialism? I believe one can accurately describe the Social nature of a state using it's foreign policy as well as economics, rather than blindly advancing silly theories like Social Imperialism/State Capitalism/Neo Bourgeois bull crap simply because Managers exist. Oh god, no, there is a Manager of the factory. What ever shall the workers do? :(
Well, this will take a long time to figure out, Marxism-Leninism is the only theory and practice which can solve this riddle. But, until I figure it out, solidarity with all the Worker's States. Fight for Socialism!
Wed, Dec. 15th, 2004, 02:34 am
Ralph is cool. it's funny that our best friends (and moist progressive) are workers at campus "restaurants."
Fri, Dec. 10th, 2004, 11:07 am
I think you begin the realize that politics is hard and the only person that really fucked up in this world is Gorbachev.
Sat, Nov. 20th, 2004, 12:35 pm
It is with deep sorrow that I inform you that there was an assesination that
took place on 11/18. The attorney general that was pursuing to bring to
justice all those police officers that were shooting against inocent people
on the bridge, and all those politicians that conspired to bring about the
coup-detat, was killed on 11/18 in a car bomb.
The president has declared three days of morning. Danilo Anderson was a 38
years old person doing his job. He refused to be bought, and paid with his
Everyone hers his calling for justice.
CB-Martin Luther King, Jr.
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of
convenience, but where he
FIST. I think we need to make it a policy to stop talking about the 'effects of Stalinist bureaucracy' in Workers World. Just last week there was a piece about how 'Stalinist bureaucracy' put a break on gains for GLBT. [However untrue that is.] Not only that it makes the assertion that Stalinism is something of an international doctrine, a very Trotskyist view point. Dangerous. Not that it matters now, but, it should be a policy never to comment on the short comings of previous Socialist leadership in a public forum. Always defend the Socialist leaders. Never EVER break solidarity by criticizing them in news papers or any public forum, that kind of thing should be limited to party meetings and internal discussion -- otherwise we all might look like a bunch of Sparts.
While criticizing leadership is necessary and important under Socialism as Mao pointed out during the Cultural Revolution, it is not necessary to criticize former Socialist leadership within an Imperialist nation as it divides ranks.
I don't know what's going to work. Well, tomorrow Sarah and I begin the huge organizational undertaking for building FIST and PGH Workers World branch. Thank God they allow us to make 3,000 copies each for free at Wean.
Both of you,
Dance like you want to win.
Thu, Nov. 4th, 2004, 11:14 pm
& I scream we got the best of them: Heinz Ketchup&Halliburton. Liberals fear the far right&what is the far right? It's you. Privatize&Economize&Reduce Taxes&Reduce Labor Laws&Maximize Profit. Margical Cost is the enemy&diminishing returns is unavoidable, capitalistas. Even you recognize that&you show that the theory of surplus value is true in every journal where you state that the efficiency of capital is leading to decreased increase in profit during each production schedule&we will bury you. Chavez represents the new South America. Under the banner of Alternativa Bolivariana all of South America is rallying around Independence and Pan-American Socialism&now that Uruguay is flying the Red Flag of Freedom we are well on our way to solidarityindependencesocialismfraternityanticapitalism.
Thu, Oct. 28th, 2004, 11:49 pm
An attempt to tip the scales&destroy capitalist life, why become a hippie and life in a commune(artist)& what is it about being a revolutionary anyway&closer to god it's not about lifestyle,no,fighting it's about killing it's about class war this is what we do & any personal usage of drugs cannot contaminate the desire to