Yixian
March 1st, 2007, 09:34 PM
For a number of years I've been frustratingly forced to reiterate basic Communist theory to people I'm debating with, maintaining that fundemental Marxist philosophy is in no way related to Stalinism and Maoism etc. - but I don't blame the public or the right wing.
I blame today's communists. They have failed to come to terms with what happened in Russia, and so have lost "ownership" of the semantics of Communism, which has now been reassociated with death and destruction by many Western powers, and rendered support for Marxism relatively non-existant in the developed world.
They have failed to look at what happened in Russia scientifically and come to a rational conclusion about why it didn't work.
But I don't think it's a big mystery at all, and I don't think we can blame anyone but yesterday's communists in Russia themselves. After all, if you're a community, you're not in this for the personal gain, this is all about making cool, hard, scientific judgements in order to secure equality in the future, and if that means accepting faults within past communist movements, then so be it.
So why didn't it work? Obviously it's complicated, but the majority of reasons the Russian revolution, and proceeding revolutions in it's image, failed is due to one critical flaw in the theory.
A fundemental concept in all of Marxism is that revolution must occur in the most economically developed nation of a region/the world if global change is to occur, as only by restructing the top will the later links in the chain fall into place.
Russia failed to become a Communist state for one simple reason; Lenin and the Bolsheviks had no intention for it to become one.
Now, that is not to say Lenin was not a Marxist or a Socialist, indeed he remains a prominent figure in those theories, at least rhetorically, or in revolutionary methodology. However, the Russia of the early 1900's was by no means the most economically developed nation in the region.
Whilst we may still be accustomed to the image of Russia as a recent superpower, the Russia of the early 20th Century was bitterly impoverished, socially unstable and in every sense a tumultuous third world nation. Indeed, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, quite easily the single greatest humaniatarian disaster in the history of the human species (aided in no small part, I must say, by the United States, who frequently applaud themselves for it), Russia is reverting back to it's former state.
But the Communist Party never really intended focusing it's efforts on establishing a Commune in Russia,but neither were they lying to the population in proclaiming their allegiance to the working man. No, the Communists in Russia had their eyes set on another country not far away from the very beggining.
Germany was the leading industrial nation of the time, and the Communist Party intended to spark revolution in Germany and use it to spread Marxist economics throughout Europe. This is clear from early Party literature, the keen interest in Germany and the drawing up of plans to assume dominance over the nation and all that lay between.
The Communist Party made no real effort to establish Communism in Russia, they saw little point, and prefered to made the big change in one swoop by falling Germany to the Red Flag. However, once it became clear that Germany was in-attainable now that American and British hositility threatened, the Bolsheviks were left with an instable third world country on their hands.
And what happened? Out went Lenin, out went Trotsky, and in came Stalin. Within years the Soviet Union reverted back to capitalism and big-business economics with national interests at heart. The United States refused offers to disarm and so the arms race began and Russia became a deeply paranoid, brutally developmental state in which human rights went out the window and nobody had any real interests in egliatarian economics.
This model of nationalisation followed by the creation of localised capitalist economics and militarisation because a template for most "Communist" revolutions following Russia, particularly China. The Red Flag proivided a convenient banner by which to organise popular support and rid a nation of fuedalism, but following the revolution, the workers and the avid Marxists took a backseat to newly emerging businessmen and generals.
It's easy to blame the US for driving Russia out of Communism, but I guess the Bolsheviks have to take just as much blame for their rather half-baked plans to seize Germany and ignore domestic economics.
Following revolutions were scarcely impeded by the US, however, and blame should be squarely taken by the so called "Communist Parties" that rose to power in China, N. Korea and so on. With the exception of Cuba, however, which, given it's proximity to the US, could not be tolerated by Washington and therefore warrented immediate and violent destruction.
What the US must take blame for, however, is what followed. It doesn't matter how dogmiatic you are about "free market" capitalism, the US won't tolerate you unless you operate within their ballpark, and hence capitalist Russia was dominated by the US, as was Nicaragua following Sandinista revolution, and they tried and failed the proceedure in Vietnam, and are still wrestling with China.
US capitalist-inspired involvement in countries attempting economic revolution has led invariably to widespread destruction and massive massive crimes. For example, in Latin America, the nation with the largest historical US military presence has been Haiti; the poorest nation on Earth. The second in Nicaragua; the second poorest nation on Earth. The third is Guatamala; the third poorest nation on Earth.
Similarly, in East Asia, the only nations to miss out on the East Asian economic boom have been the Philippines, Vietnam and Cambodia (as well as a few smaller nations tied directly to these), the only nations in the region bar the Koreas to have suffered USattack (Note: During 'Nam, more bombs were dropped by the US on Cambodia than in the entire 2nd World War).
So who is to blame for the failure of Communism? The Parties who had no intention of bringing Communism to their nations, and the US/West who brutally punished the nations that attempted to form localised capitalist economics in it's place.
In other words: Capitalists.
I wouldn't dismiss egliatarian economics yet my friends, scarcely has it been attempted, and scarcely could it's alternativ ebe considered the only possible solution.
I blame today's communists. They have failed to come to terms with what happened in Russia, and so have lost "ownership" of the semantics of Communism, which has now been reassociated with death and destruction by many Western powers, and rendered support for Marxism relatively non-existant in the developed world.
They have failed to look at what happened in Russia scientifically and come to a rational conclusion about why it didn't work.
But I don't think it's a big mystery at all, and I don't think we can blame anyone but yesterday's communists in Russia themselves. After all, if you're a community, you're not in this for the personal gain, this is all about making cool, hard, scientific judgements in order to secure equality in the future, and if that means accepting faults within past communist movements, then so be it.
So why didn't it work? Obviously it's complicated, but the majority of reasons the Russian revolution, and proceeding revolutions in it's image, failed is due to one critical flaw in the theory.
A fundemental concept in all of Marxism is that revolution must occur in the most economically developed nation of a region/the world if global change is to occur, as only by restructing the top will the later links in the chain fall into place.
Russia failed to become a Communist state for one simple reason; Lenin and the Bolsheviks had no intention for it to become one.
Now, that is not to say Lenin was not a Marxist or a Socialist, indeed he remains a prominent figure in those theories, at least rhetorically, or in revolutionary methodology. However, the Russia of the early 1900's was by no means the most economically developed nation in the region.
Whilst we may still be accustomed to the image of Russia as a recent superpower, the Russia of the early 20th Century was bitterly impoverished, socially unstable and in every sense a tumultuous third world nation. Indeed, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, quite easily the single greatest humaniatarian disaster in the history of the human species (aided in no small part, I must say, by the United States, who frequently applaud themselves for it), Russia is reverting back to it's former state.
But the Communist Party never really intended focusing it's efforts on establishing a Commune in Russia,but neither were they lying to the population in proclaiming their allegiance to the working man. No, the Communists in Russia had their eyes set on another country not far away from the very beggining.
Germany was the leading industrial nation of the time, and the Communist Party intended to spark revolution in Germany and use it to spread Marxist economics throughout Europe. This is clear from early Party literature, the keen interest in Germany and the drawing up of plans to assume dominance over the nation and all that lay between.
The Communist Party made no real effort to establish Communism in Russia, they saw little point, and prefered to made the big change in one swoop by falling Germany to the Red Flag. However, once it became clear that Germany was in-attainable now that American and British hositility threatened, the Bolsheviks were left with an instable third world country on their hands.
And what happened? Out went Lenin, out went Trotsky, and in came Stalin. Within years the Soviet Union reverted back to capitalism and big-business economics with national interests at heart. The United States refused offers to disarm and so the arms race began and Russia became a deeply paranoid, brutally developmental state in which human rights went out the window and nobody had any real interests in egliatarian economics.
This model of nationalisation followed by the creation of localised capitalist economics and militarisation because a template for most "Communist" revolutions following Russia, particularly China. The Red Flag proivided a convenient banner by which to organise popular support and rid a nation of fuedalism, but following the revolution, the workers and the avid Marxists took a backseat to newly emerging businessmen and generals.
It's easy to blame the US for driving Russia out of Communism, but I guess the Bolsheviks have to take just as much blame for their rather half-baked plans to seize Germany and ignore domestic economics.
Following revolutions were scarcely impeded by the US, however, and blame should be squarely taken by the so called "Communist Parties" that rose to power in China, N. Korea and so on. With the exception of Cuba, however, which, given it's proximity to the US, could not be tolerated by Washington and therefore warrented immediate and violent destruction.
What the US must take blame for, however, is what followed. It doesn't matter how dogmiatic you are about "free market" capitalism, the US won't tolerate you unless you operate within their ballpark, and hence capitalist Russia was dominated by the US, as was Nicaragua following Sandinista revolution, and they tried and failed the proceedure in Vietnam, and are still wrestling with China.
US capitalist-inspired involvement in countries attempting economic revolution has led invariably to widespread destruction and massive massive crimes. For example, in Latin America, the nation with the largest historical US military presence has been Haiti; the poorest nation on Earth. The second in Nicaragua; the second poorest nation on Earth. The third is Guatamala; the third poorest nation on Earth.
Similarly, in East Asia, the only nations to miss out on the East Asian economic boom have been the Philippines, Vietnam and Cambodia (as well as a few smaller nations tied directly to these), the only nations in the region bar the Koreas to have suffered USattack (Note: During 'Nam, more bombs were dropped by the US on Cambodia than in the entire 2nd World War).
So who is to blame for the failure of Communism? The Parties who had no intention of bringing Communism to their nations, and the US/West who brutally punished the nations that attempted to form localised capitalist economics in it's place.
In other words: Capitalists.
I wouldn't dismiss egliatarian economics yet my friends, scarcely has it been attempted, and scarcely could it's alternativ ebe considered the only possible solution.