> 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.
Gordon: "Bullshit" isn't much of an argument.
David: Nope. The "argument" comes right before.
Gordon:
Witte was a Stalinist of some sort _avant_la_lettre_? As for protectionism and planned economies, many working capitalists are quite fond of them, even though "libertarians" froth at the mouth.
David: Do you not prove my point, contrary to your seeming fantasies that your partner in conversation is some sort of Lenin-worshipping dogmatist? I think caricaturism has just about run its course here.....
Gordon:
I think Lenin had plenty to work with; I think his problems were political more than economic, chiefly the reorientation of the Bolsheviks from a revolutionary party to a self-serving elite.
David: Does the historical imperative of two major wars, almost continuously following one another, and involving an allignment of all of the world's foremost military powers, play into this "thought" at all? How about famine? Or, are you retroactively superimposing a return to Kerensky-Menshevism? Maybe a federation of anarchist communes should have immediately proceeded 1917? Please explain, using references to the acutal history of 1917, that the "problems were political more than economic."
Gordon:
(But that's hardly news.) The theory that socialism can be instituted only by advanced capitalist nations, that is, those which are the least likely to do it, has not yet been proved, but the corruption of one-time revolutionaries into a ruling class is so common the observation is banal.
David: Again, you are assuming a national rather than international agenda. It is not a matter of "only advanced capitalist nations" going socialist, but the control and power these countries have over the means of production, exchange, and distribution. So, we can't possibly talk about "socialism" "succeeding" in a "political" sense in Russia or China without access also opening up to the West. Only when the West shares its wealth equally with the rest of the world can we talk about an end to despotism in the "third world" (or "second world" or "first world", for that matter).
But, these are not "theories" but objective facts-- facts that might be more
clear to you if you read "Capital," or at the very least "Wage Labour and
Capital". There are any number of bourgeois as well as communist books you
can read about the necessity of a globalized system of production. To assume
this could occur without the participation of the largest capitalist
economies, which control the majority of the world's resources, is fatalism
at its best (I mean, worst, I mean....).
<A HREF="mailto:Dddddd0814 at aol.com%3FSubject=Re:%20war%20and%20the%20state">
Dddddd0814 at aol.com</A>:
> 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: I consider any accurate observation about the corruption, or rather the elaboration, of power to be in my personal self-interest. It has nothing to do with moralizing and everything to do with my ability (as well as everyone else's) to work my will and pursue my interests.
David: Thanks for coming clean.
Gordon:
A critique of the deterioration of the situation in the post-revolutionary Soviet Union, as to why socialism and democracy failed there after 1917, must include an analysis of the political structures and processes which enabled a sociopathic monster to get control of a huge country and destroy most of its constructive and progressive social life as well as a large number of its citizens.
David: No one is saying there weren't "political structures" involved, but they can't be examined ex nihilo from material circumstance. The burden is on you to throw us a bone as to what these "political structures and processes" were, and how they alone could "enable" anything beyond bourgeois pseudo-moral outrage.
Do the "political structures and processes" of the U.S. government enable a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, or are there any economic factors involved at all?
Gordon:
There is no point in explaining this as the result of scarcity when we observe people setting the political stage for precisely this sort of succession.
David: Do you think economic scarcity has any tangible result? Any at all? Does these things at all effect the political sphere?
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.
Gordon: Where is this mass movement at the moment? What about the millions who say they don't want more, they want some time off, or, if they must work, less crappy jobs?
David: Now Gordon puts himself in the authoritative position to speak for "millions who say [sic] they don't want more." No, the burden of proof is on him to prove that the BILLIONS of starving people in the world do not want to be properly nourished.
Gordon:
(_More_ isn't going to get them time off by itself; the per capita gross product has increased many times over since the 8-hour workday became customary, but the 8-hour workday remains, probably because it maximizes production-consumption.)
David: This is simply one of the many economic contradictions of capitalism: i.e., the fact that within bourgeois modes of production, labor time cannot be decreased to any extent while increasing wages. But, since economics never figure in, what does it matter, anyway?
David:
> 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.
Gordon: I don't see this; it's just being asserted. _Why_ is a large complex material base necessary?
David: Do the math, Gordon. Relegating a world population of 6 billion people to small scale farming, localized economy, and limited technology is a prescription for mass murder, the likes of which have only been witnessed by.... hey, whaddayaknow, Stalin and Pol Pot!
Gordon: ....But if you could sabotage scarcity production, maybe a lot of people would take a walk. And then you'd have the beginning of a revolution.
David: Where is this mass movement at the moment?
-- David
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20020829/be3d0c15/attachment.htm>