As I understand Marx, Socialism was viewed as an intermediate stage between
capitalism and communism. The reason no country ever got it "right" is
because socialism could only arise in a country where capitalism had
developed the forces of production ("Capitalism is the womb of socialism")
that is, the most developed capitalist economies. Marx assumed Germany and
later in his life, the US. Instead, "socialism" developed in some of the
most backward economies such as Russia and China (Russia only abolished
serfdom in the mid 19th c). Lenin justified this "aberration" with his
theory of the "weakest link," namely that global capitalist development had
to be broken at its weakest location. Hence, these "socialist" economies
were confronted with the historical task that was supposed to be undertaken
by capitalism - developing the forces of production. So, it is not
surprising that we get such ridiculous statements in Russia in the 1920s
such as "Soviets plus Fordism plus electricity equals Communism."
Socialism, as far as I understand it entails four things: collective
ownership of the means of production, collective appropriation of social
surplus, a planned economy and the existence of a state. The latter is
especially important under socialism and one of the features that
distinguishes it from communism, where the state, as Lenin writes in State
and Revolution, withers away. What form does the state take under socialism
- again, Lenin tells us that it must be a "dictatorship of the proletariat."
This dictatorship must be ruthless. Why? because the reactionary elements in
the society - the former owners of the means of production and their culture
- must be suppressed and eventually eliminated. (Socialism entails the
creation of not just a new economy but of a new "man.") It was, for
example, these reactionary elements which, with the aid of the Allies,
fomented the counter revolution in Russia and it was the attempt to
eliminate them that produced the Cultural Revolution in China and the
massacres under Pol Pot in Cambodia.
As to the process of governance, I recall the Lenin had a fairly detailed
discussion of governance under Communism in State and Revolution (but it
escapes me now.) Jus because Socialism requires a state does not mean it
must be a democratic state. A state, to quote Lenin, is simply "an armed
body of men" or, to quote the German sociologist, Max Weber, "the legitimate
use of force within a prescribed area." One thing is sure, Socialism can
only permit, at best, in its early years, limited democracy. Why, quite
simply (and history has repeatedly shown this) - the masses are stupid.
They are easily swayed and do not understand their own best interest. (BTW,
even the framers of the US Constitution were worried about the masses, such
as they were in that day, hence the absence of the direct elections for the
President in the original constitution.) A more recent example of the
stupidity of the masses is the entire fiasco about health care in the US.
There must be a period of leadership - the vanguard party - which may do
things that are or appear to be contrary to short term best interests of
groups but are in long term best interests of society. It is absolutely
imperative that this vanguard party act as an enlightened elite and act in
the best interests of society instead of themselves (as was the case in the
USSR and, to a lesser extent China). Obviously the must be some form of
direct input by the masses into these decisions - today, by way of the
Internet - but the final choice must rest with the elite. (BTW, that's how
it is today except it is the interests of Capital that are most clearly and
forcibly represented at the level of the state.)
Carl Dassbach
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David B. Shemano
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 9:04 PM
To: Progressive Economics
Subject: [Pen-l] The mechanics of socialism
Michael Perelman writes:
>> Capitalism has had centuries to try to get it right. No country has
>> ever really instituted socialism, which began in poor countries with
>> serious external threats. Even so, the growth in the USSR and China was
>> impressive.
>>
>> Marx said that he did not write cookbooks. He could not determine how
>> things should be done. I am not sure that Jim D's 51% is the way to go.
Utter copout. Why am I more interested in the mechanics of socialism than
you are?
Let's me ask a related question which I kind of danced around in the prior
posts. In your view, Is "socialism" a process of governance ("one person,
one vote"), or is it a description of a state of affairs ("peace, clean air
and water, and social and economic equality"). If it is a process, what if
the voters vote to permit private property relations, or inequality, or
NASCAR racing? Must the voters vote in a certain way for the society to
retain the "socialist" label? And if it is a state of affairs, what if the
state of affairs is achieved through centralization and/or authoritarian
rule? Can a society retain the "socialist" label if the decision-makers are
an enlightened elite?
David Shemano
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
