>>> Jamal Hannah <jah at iww.org> 12/17/99 04:34AM >>>
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Charles Brown wrote:
> >Then you agree with Stalin and Bukharin that socialism is possible in a
> >single backward country? An international revolution may not have made
> >the USSR utopia, but it would have helped.
>
> They were not completely wrong. A international revolution was not possible
> in 1921 and the survival of a state dedicated to spread revolution in all
> other countries would be troublesome, at least. So the only alternative was
> to build socialism in one country.
>
> ((((((((((((
>
> Charles: I see it this way too. The idea was NOT "build socialism only in one country, and be against revolutions in France, Germany, England, the U.S." , but rather the idea was " if no "advanced " country has a socialist revolution, we are not going to call ours off. " How could the Soviets make a revolution in another country ? The failure of there being revs. in other countries was not the fault of the Soviets.
If one builds socialism in one country, they must not create a police state as exists in Cuba or North Korea, because this is worse than losing the class war... it makes socialism into it's exact opposite: tyranny.
((((((((((((((
Charles: The dictatorship of the proletariat has a state apparatus ,which is to say a dominance on repressive force , red police and red armies (standing bodies of armed personnel), prisons, etc. , prosecution of wars, because during the transition from capitalism to communism there are still bourgeois states with all the same. This self-defensive red state apparatus is the only way to win the class war with the bourgeoisie. This is a difference between Marxists/communists and absolute pacifists.
The anarchists' pretense that socialism can be built without these defensive red apparatuses means that they are not serious about building socialism, pursuing a utopian never-never land. Anarchists' beliefs that their failure to establish any actually existing socialism by shunning establishment of red state apparatuses makes them morally superior to communists who have are derivatively utopian. That is to say the moral superiority you think you have to communists is illusory.
CB