Dddddd0814 at aol.com:
> I see lots of proof that socialism is impossible in underdeveloped countries
> in and of themselves. Russia, China, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, etc. I don't see
> that socialism ever existed in these countries beyond in a very transitional
> sense.
>
> Conversely, I see little proof that socialism at all possible in the
> underdeveloped countries. Proletarian revolutions, maybe-- but not socialist
> society.
>
> As I wrote earlier, this seems to be one of the keys to the ideological
> overlap between many anarchists and Stalinists: i.e., the notion that
> socialism can exist in once country alone, removed from the global sphere.
> One group affirms the notion in the idealist sense, the other in the
> pragmatic.
> ...
Surely abolition of the State implies abolition of the particular nation-states as well as other kinds of state, and so requires that anarchism be international -- or maybe we should say post-national -- in its practices and aims. ("International" suggests more recognition of the nation than I think many anarchists care for.)
In regard to socialism being impossible in underdeveloped countries, the figures seem to indicate that Russia was not so underdeveloped. It is true that its per capita product must have been significantly lower than Germany's or Britain's, but as you observed the Tsar was the richest person in the world, indicating that the Russian State was highly centralized, economically as well as politically, suggesting therefore an opportunity of further coordinated, rapid development, of great interest at least for those who believe that it is the vigorous exercise of capital that leads to the good society.
--
> You have yet to present any proof that socialism
> is impossible in "underdeveloped" countries.
billbartlett at dodo.com.au:
> This isn't complicated. Societies that lack a highly developed
> means of production simply don't have the means to provide
> economic security for all. It would be asking too much of
> human nature to expect that a society based on universal
> poverty and insecurity would be acceptable to anyone except
> a saint. Everyone aspires to personal economic security. A
> society that cannot provide this will inevitably be torn by
> constant strife as each member attempts to make their life a
> little better at the expense of others. Each person will
> attempt to dominate others in order to get a larger share of
> the social product. ...
Yet capitalist development in the United States has progressed to a point where the per capita income is many, many times what is necessary to sustain life -- everyone's life -- in relative comfort, indeed, in luxury compared to pre-industrial standards. But this situation has not led to relief from insecurity but, apparently, an increase in it.
In any case, you seem to be talking about Welfare rather than socialism, defined by me as "the means of production owned or controlled by the workers, or by the people generally." Even -- maybe especially -- an insecure people might feel impelled to see to their means of production. And this may be why we see socialism enjoying more popularity in poor countries than rich ones where, according to the theory given above, it is supposed to be more appropriate.
In this model of transition from high capitalism to socialism, what is supposed to set off the sudden reversal of values that turns the earnest capitalist workers into earnest socialist workers? If it's hard times, the insecurity advertised above must preclude any interest in socialism. If it's fat times, well, why change? So what if the rich have more? It's a lot of trouble to look for a new job, much less a new society. And State-imposed socialism has a lousy track record.
In any case, the capitalist context constantly militates against any sort of socialist activity in the mainstream working and middle classes. They've been smart enough to see to that.
-- Gordon