"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."
David responds:
Aah, but again you seem to be only looking at the capabilities of Russia in an of itself, and how it should have become as productive as Germany, Britain, etc. But, the fact is that Russia existed in a larger global sphere, where the competing, more powerful states of the West were constantly squeezing its productive capacity to insure that it remained "underdeveloped." The Tsar's economic accumulation did not benefit the plebeians of Russia, but the monarchic dynasties and global capital.
Russia, existing in the global economic sphere as it did, would have simply stayed a backwards Eastern European or Slavic country (as it is once again becoming), had it not been for reformist Stalinism, protectionism and planned economies. Otherwise, we might just as well use the argument that contemporary India, since it is a "democratic capitalist" country with many "rich people," will soon enough advance to close to the level of the United States and Great Britain. Bullshit.
But anyway, I think it's quite clear that socialism, regardless of the relative level of development within, was a failure in Russia. The next step is to determine why. If our reasons don't go beyond liberal crocodile-tear moralism and the standard bourgeois axioms about how "power corrupts absolutely," then we're going to get nowhere fast.
Gordon:
"On the other hand, as people get more and more stuff, they become more and more glued to capitalism (usually). They seem _more_, rather than less insecure. So the route to socialism or communism by means of capitalism appears obscure; something is missing from the map. Or it may be that high capitalism isn't the best way to get rid of or move beyond capitalism. I'm proposing a question, not issuing a prescription. I'm observing that certain received ideas don't entirely match up to what we observe."
David:
What you are observing is one of the primary forces in the dialectic: i.e., that when people get a little, they want more. This is one of the fundamental contradictions of capitalism: never have so many people *had* a little bit of *something*, and this is what allows them to struggle for more. The large bulk of people who want more are the workers and poor, not the capitalists. Thus capitalism, in the developed countries especially, provides a genuine mass movement for socialism.
And besides, if anything at all here is "matching up to what we observe", it is those same observation by Marx which run throughout his work: that unevenness of development is a primary feature of capitalist society globally. This is not a matter of "obscurity" or "received ideas," but the objective fact that a large complex material basis is required for international socialism. But this is only possible when the means of production are put into the hands of the workers themselves.
Best, David