I find it interesting that you say the results of the Russian Revolution don't count because Russia was "underdeveloped" and then divert the discussion to talking about Russia. You have yet to present any proof that socialism is impossible in "underdeveloped" countries. As I explained before, the nature of the state is such that it is always an organ for the domination of the majority by a minority. It doesn't matter whether the state is in Russia, Luxembourg, Indoneasia or where-ever. I wrote a few paragraphs outlining the basic reason why this is earlier; if you disagree then refute them.
> Lenin even went so far as to
> write in 1922:
By 1922 Lenin had already crushed the genuine socialism that had started to spring up in 1917 and replaced it with his party dictatorship. Starting almost immediately after October the Bolsheviks started subordinating the worker committees - an imperfect form of worker self-managment - to centralized planning dictated by the state (ie. state-capitalism). Not long afterwards the committees were liquidated entirely in favor of one-man management. Party members and managers were paid small fortunes while workers & peasants starved on the street.
Shortly after October Lenin set up the Cheka (secret police) and in 1918, starting with the anarchists, used them to exterminate rival lefist groups. They shot Mensheviks for advocated a policy a variation of which was ironically later implemented by the Bolsheviks - the New Economic policy. When the Bolsheviks lost elections in the Soviets six months after October they disbanded or gerrymandered whichever soviets wouldn't cooperate. When workers went on strike for better wages, an end to repression, etc. or got too vocal in criticizing their new masters the Bolsheviks would shoot them down. All of this happened before the civil war started. That a so-called "proletarian state" would shoot strikers and other workers en masse clearly shows the contradiction of a "worker's state." It makes about as much as a "worker's corporation" or a "worker's capitalism." You can call something a "proletarian state" but the nature of a state makes such a thing impossible.
> It was clear to
> us that without the support of the international world revolution a
> victory of the proletarian overturn was impossible. Even before the
> revolution, and likewise after it, our thought was: immediately, or at
> any rate very quickly, a revolution will begin in the other countries,
> in capitalistically more developed countries-- or in the contrary case
> we will have to perish."
>
> "Have to perish"! How different this was-- and is-- from Stalin's claims
> that the Russian revolution would triumph into socialism, maintaining
> itself because of its "internal strength"!
It took 70 years for the state-capitalist regime founded by Lenin to perish.
> Thus, the Russian revolution possessed the political-- but not the
> economic-- means of socialism.
A blatantly flase claim since socialism existed in much of Russia in 1917 & 1918 (and some parts of the Empire until 1921) but was annhiliated by the bolsheviks as they implemented their state-capitalist
policies.
> > Maybe I misunderstood what you meant when you referred to
> >"authoritarian
> > socialism" above. Did you mean actual attempts at socialism or did you
> > just mean the notion of socialism in the abstract?
>
> Joe:
> I mean the notion that socialism should be achieved by seizing control
> of the state and using the state to abolish capitalism and establish
> socialism. This can be contrasted with libertarian socialism.
>
> David:
> So, in other words, you *were* referring to the economically less
> advanced countries.
Uh, no. Theoretically authoritarian socialism could be implemented in developed countries as well - in fact to a certain it was by elected social democrat parties after WW2. Of course the results of applying authoritarian socialism have always and will always result in state-capitalism, not genuine socialism. The term 'authoritarian socialism' refers primarily to the _idea_ that one should achieve socialism by seizing control of the state - as advocated by you and others.
> Okay. But the dogmatism that socialism can be
> achieved by a minority is only applicable to those countries that were
> less advanced, where there couldn't possibly be a mass movement for
> socialism, because the proletariat was not in the majority.
I don't see how socialism can ever be achieved by minority rule. And peasants can be just as revolutionary as workers.
> David:
> ....what Marx referred to as "primitive communism". The question then
> becomes whether or not there is a fundamental difference between
> primitive societies and technologically advanced ones. Can technology be
> used in a truly democratic manner, "for the people," or must we regress
> to a pre-technological society?
Certain technologies are compatable with a free society, though probably not all technologies. I'd like to think we can have airplanes, etc. without hierarchy and coercision but if industrialism requires the gulag then I'll pass. As I said before, the notion that one has to be "developed" to have socialism is rubbish. There has never been an industrial socialist society that lasted for a signifigant period of time but there have been many pre-industrial socialist societies (like the Iriqois, !Kung, Igbo, etc.) that lasted for centuries.
> As a Marxist, I submit that the fundamental character of authority in
> the 21st century is a class character: authority is determined by
> capitalism, the bourgeoisie.
Just because you say something is true doesn't mean it is true.
-- Joe R. Golowka JoeG at ieee.org Anarchist FAQ -- http://www.anarchyfaq.org
"The basic problem is quite simple. An elected representative is not tied in any substantial way to particular policies, whatever the preferences of the electorate. Influence on the politician is greatest at the time of election. Once elected, the representative is released from popular control but continues to be exposed to powerful pressure groups, especially corporations, state bureaucracies and political party power brokers." - Brian Martin