> 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.
Which only proves that Authoritarian Socialism - especially of the Bolshevik variety - leads to state-capitalism.
> Conversely, I see little proof that socialism at all possible in the
> underdeveloped countries. Proletarian revolutions, maybe-- but not
> socialist society.
As I pointed out before - there have been many classless pre-industrial societies, which flatly disproves the idea that you must have "development" to have socialism. You don't need white people to have socialism.
> 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.
Since anarchists believe in the abolition of the nation-state, and thus of countries, this is a flagrant straw man. You have a lot more in common with stalinists with your advocacy of conquering state power.
> 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.
The degeneration of the Russian Revolution into state-capitalism is confirmation of what Mikhail Bakunin & other Libertarian Socialists predicted would happen were authoritarian socialist ideas to be implemented. Earlier I stated on this list:
"Establishing a state controlled by the proletariat, as advocated by the
Manifesto, is not possible and attempts to do so leads to the formation of a new group of exploiters to replace the old ones. The state is an organisation with a monopoly (or near-monopoly) on the legitimate use of violence. It is a centralized rule-making body that stands "above" society and uses various armed bodies of people and coercive institutions (courts, prisons, etc.) to force people to obey it. It is an organ of class rule which cannot be used to abolish classes. How are the workers supposed to maintain control of an organisation standing "above" society with it's own specialized armed forces and maintaining a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence? It's not possible - the state is the one with a monopoly on violence and could use that monopoly to ignore what the proletariat want and order them around - effectively forming a new ruling class over the proletariat. The myth of the "good state" is a popular one among leftists, but in reality every state has been founded on the blood of the poor (even "socialist" ones.
Liberalism and Authoritarian Socialism both share a common theme in that they establish systems of minority rule and claim that this system of minority rule is actually majority rule; that the rulers aren't really the rulers. With Liberalism they claim that under their state "the people" rule but the wealthy (and corrupt politicians) actually rule; with Marxist-Leninism they claim that under their state "the proletariat" rule but actually the party (or, more acurrately, the leaders of the party) rules.
In a centrally planned economy, instead of decisions being made by the producers themselves decisions are made by a small group of centralized planners in Moscow (or Washington or London or some other capitol). The workers are disempowered, deprived of control of their own lives, and forced to submit to these planners. Material conditions have a huge impact on a persons consciousness, behavior, and material interests. Individuals are shaped by the institutions they are a part of, the position they occupy in those institutions and the social relationships they have with others. Since they are in different conditions then the workers these buerecrats will tend to end up with different consciousness and material interests. There's no reason to expect them to act in the workers interests, and since they have different material interests then the workers will come into conflict with the workers (a conflict called class struggle). This happens even if your buerecrats are elected workers as, once elected, they are no longer workers but buerecrats. Thus the actual rulers are not workers but buerecrats who end up constituting a new ruling class that exploits the proletariat just as the previous ruling class did. It doesn't matter whether this is applied in a single isolated country, a third of the globe or the entire world - this is inherent in the nature of a centrally planned economy."
In Russia what happened is exactly what I stated attempts to establish "workers states" always do - it leads to the formation of a new group of exploiters to replace the old ones. Immediately after the October insurrection the Bolsheviks proceeded to consolidate their power and establish a monopoly of legitimate violence. They formed the Cheka, began centralizing the economy under their supreme economic council and suppressing the worker's committes & village assemblies. This resulted in transforming the bolsheviks into a caste of self-seeking intellectuals, a new ruling class of exploiters over the workers & peasants, for the reasons noted above.
I have yet to see a coherent explanation for how the ad hoc hypotheses that the degeneration of the russian revolution somehow was a result of being "underdeveloped" or "the civil war" or whatnot.
-- 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