babyhueypnewton posted:i think your ideas are extremely consistent, i guess i just don't like it because it leads to some unpleasant ideas, like that China is still socialist or that Perestroika was simply a restructuring of socialism rather than introduction of market relations to reestablish the profit motive. if the soviet union was socialist until the Yeltsin coup and there were different factions in the USSR moving in different directions, why did all the reforms starting with Khruschev move towards capitalist relations (market reforms, private property relations, profit motive, bonus wage incentives) rather than back towards socialist relations (central planning, collectivization, moving towards abolishing the law of value, etc)? also why do these same reforms, which resemble capitalist relations, happen in various other socialist contexts like North Korea, Cuba, China, Vietnam?
well, why was the NEP carried out after War Communism and why did the Bolsheviks under Lenin see the need for state capitalism? And what is state capitalism and how does it function under the bourgeoisie and how does it function under the proletariat? Let's investigate!
Without big banks socialism would be impossible. The big banks are the 'state apparatus' which we need to bring about socialism, and which we take ready-made from capitalism; our task here is merely to lop off what capitalistically mutilates this excellent apparatus, to make it even bigger, even more democratic, even more comprehensive. Quantity will be transformed into quality. A single State Bank, the biggest of the big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus. This will be country wide book-keeping, country-wide accounting of the production and distribution of goods, this will be, so to speak, something like the nature of the skeleton of socialist society.
Lenin, October 1917
The state capitalism discussed in all books on economics is that which exists under the capitalist system, where the state brings under its direct control certain capitalist enterprises. But ours is a proletarian state it rests on the proletariat; it gives the proletariat all political privileges; and through the medium of the proletariat it attracts to itself the lower ranks of the peasantry (you remember that we began this work through the Poor Peasants Committees). That is why very many people are misled by the term state capitalism. To avoid this we must remember the fundamental thing that state capitalism in the form we have here is not dealt with in any theory, or in any books, for the simple reason that all the usual concepts connected with this term are associated with bourgeois rule in capitalist society. Our society is one which has left the rails of capitalism, but has not yet got on to new rails. The state in this society is not ruled by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat. We refuse to understand that when we say “state” we mean ourselves, the proletariat, the vanguard of the working class. State capitalism is capitalism which we shall be able to restrain, and the limits of which we shall be able to fix. This state capitalism is connected with the state, and the state is the workers, the advanced section of the workers, the vanguard. We are the state.
Lenin, V.I., Eleventh Congress Of The R.C.P.(B.), Mar 27th – Apr 2nd, 1922, Works, Volume 33, p.278, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1973
The state capitalism that we have introduced in our country is of a special kind. It does not agree with the usual conception of state capitalism. We hold all the key positions. We hold the land; it belongs to the state. This is very important, although our opponents try to make out that it is of no importance at all. That is untrue. The fact that the land belongs to the state is extremely important, and economically it is also of great practical purport. This we have achieved, and I must say that all our future activities should develop only within that framework. We have already succeeded in making the peasantry content and in reviving both industry and trade. I have already said that our state capitalism differs from state capitalism in the literal sense of the term in that our proletarian state not only owns the land, but also all the vital branches of industry. To begin with, we have leased only a certain number of the small and medium plants, but all the rest remain in our hands. As regards trade, I want to re-emphasise that we are trying to found mixed companies, that we are already forming them, i.e., companies in which part of the capital belongs to private capitalists—and foreign capitalists at that—and the other part belongs to the state.
Lenin, V.I., Fourth Congress of the Communist International, November 5th to December 5th, 1922, Works, Volume 33, p.427-428, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1973
It is in this field that the main struggle is being waged. Between what elements is this struggle being waged if we are to speak in terms of economic categories such as “state capitalism"? Between the fourth and the fifth in the order in which I have just enumerated them. Of course not. It is not state capitalism that is at war with socialism, but the petty bourgeoisie plus private capitalism fighting together against both state capitalism and socialism. The petty bourgeoisie oppose every kind of state interference, accounting and control, whether it be state capitalist or state socialist. This is an absolutely unquestionable fact of reality, and the root of the economic mistake of the “Left Communists” is that they have failed to understand it. The profiteer, the commercial racketeer, the disrupter of monopoly—these are our principal “internal” enemies, the enemies of the economic measures of Soviet power. A hundred and twenty-five years ago it might have been excusable for the French petty bourgeoisie, the most ardent and sincere revolutionaries, to try to crush the profiteer by executing a few of the “chosen” and by making thunderous declamations. Today, however, the purely rhetorical attitude to this question assumed by some Left Socialist-Revolutionaries can rouse nothing but disgust and revulsion in every politically conscious revolutionary. We know perfectly well that the economic basis of profiteering is both the small proprietors, who are exceptionally widespread in Russia, and private capitalism, of which every petty bourgeois is an agent. We know that the million tentacles of this petty-bourgeois hydra now and again encircle various sections of the workers, that, instead of state monopoly, profiteering forces its way into every pore of our social and economic organism.
V. I. Lenin, “Left-Wing” Childishness. April 1918
David Laibman, "The 'State-Capitalist' and 'Bureaucratic-Exploitative' Interpretations of the Soviet Social Formation: A Critique," published in 'The Soviet Union: Socialist or Social-Imperialist?', 1983.
my ideas on modern China in my next post
Urbandale posted:so if we're cool with the resources needed to build socialism being extracted from sectors of the population inside the country in question(sectors that while not proletarian, we are ostensibly friendly to), why arent we cool with implementing policies that extract this wealth from foreign companies?
the easy answer to me is that you don't want foreign capitalists getting comfortable on your turf in the context of an increasingly "globalist" capitalist class. you want them to fear you. hoxha's answer would maybe be that socialist ownership stands opposed to foreign investment with control scattered among groups of workers that are not only sub-class but below even the level on which the proletariat can be organized within a nation. after all in every case being discussed above the question is of the socialist character of ownership, not of aspects supposedly inherent in the owners that would somehow redeem capitalist activity. but i'm no expert on hoxha, i am an anti imperialist of the broad type, but a guy, i own his & hers motorcycles and i vote
As Lenin pointed out, there were, in the transitional period in the U.S.S.R., the following five forms of economy:
(1) Patriarchal peasant economy.
(2) Petty commodity production.
(3) The private economy of capitalism.
(4) State capitalism.
(5) Socialist economy.
Patriarchal peasant economy, based on personal labour, was a small-scale and largely natural economy. In other words, it produced almost exclusively for its own needs.
Petty commodity production was based on personal labour and connected to a greater or lesser degree with the market. This was primarily the middle-peasant economy, producing the bulk of marketed grain, as well as handicraft production without the use of hired labour. Petty commodity economy embraced the bulk of the population for a considerable part of the transitional period.
The private economy of capitalism was represented by the most numerous of the exploiting classes—the kulaks as well as by the owners of non-nationalised (mainly small and middling), industrial concerns and by traders. The capitalist concerns used hired labour, labour-power was a commodity, exploitation existed and surplus-value was appropriated by the capitalists.
State capitalism took the form mainly of concessions granted by the Soviet Government to foreign capitalists, and of certain State concerns rented to capitalists. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, State capitalism was essentially different from that existing under the domination of the bourgeoisie. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, it is a form of economy which is strictly limited by the proletarian authority and is utilised by it in the struggle with petty-bourgeois disorganising influences and in the building of socialism. State capitalism occupied only a very small place in the economy of the U.S.S.R.
Socialist economy comprised, in the first place, the factories, mills, transport, banks, State farms, trading and other concerns belonging to the Soviet State. In the second place, it included the co-operatives—consumer, supply, credit and producer, including their highest form, the collective farms. The basis of socialist economy was large-scale machine industry. At the very outset of the transitional period, socialist economy, as the most advanced of these economic forms, began to playa leading role in the economy of the country.
In the socialist sector of the economy, labour-power ceased to be a commodity, labour lost the character of hired labour and became labour for the worker himself, for society. Surplus-value disappeared. The transition to planning of the work of nationalised concerns, first in particular industries and subsequently throughout the whole of the State sector, was gradually achieved. As a result of the establishment of social ownership of the means of production, the output of State concerns began to accrue to the State, that is to the whole of the working people, instead of the capitalists.
https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch23.htm
No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic implies the determination of Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the new economic system is recognised as a socialist order.
But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question.
Let us enumerate these elements:
1) patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming;
2) small commodity production (this includes the majority of those peasants who sell their grain);
3) private capitalism;
4) state capitalism;
5) socialism.
Russia is so vast and so varied that all these different types of socio-economic structures are intermingled. This is what constitutes the specific features of the situation.
The question arises: what elements predominate? Clearly in a small-peasant country, the petty-bourgeois element predominates and it must predominate, for the great majority of those working the land are small commodity producers. The shell of our state capitalism (grain monopoly, state controlled entrepreneurs and traders, bourgeois co-operators) is pierced now in one place, now in another by profiteers, the chief object of profiteering being grain.
V. I. Lenin, “Left-Wing” Childishness. April 1918
In every form of society there is a particular [branch of] production which determines the position and importance of all the others, and the relations obtaining in this branch accordingly determine those in all other branches. It is the general light tingeing all other colours and modifying them in their specific quality; it is a special ether determining the specific gravity of everything found in it..
Marx, K. (2010). Economic Manuscripts of 1857-58. Marx & Engels Collected Works. Vol.28. Laurence and Wishart p.43
this should be taken in light of the modern socialist economies
Edited by Crow ()
2) reduced poverty on a mass scale while not operating with any neocolonies:
In 2010 Professor Danny Quah, of the London School of Economics, noted: 'In the last 3 decades, China alone has lifted more people out of extreme poverty than the rest of the world combined.
[...]
In contrast the number of people living in such extreme poverty outside China increased by 50 million between 1981 and 2008 – the number of people emerging from poverty was less than the population increase.
http://ablog.typepad.com/keytrendsinglobalisation/2013/11/china-world-poverty.html
even though imperial organs try to take credit for it
and 3) has at least 50% of its economy in state hands (yasheng huang's estimate) with regulations and controls unheard of in the west (like making the practice of moving machinery out of the factory or out of the country, typical union busting and offshoring techniques, theft of state property ).
this may help explain why typical bourgeois economic readings of China's "economic bubble about to burst" have been wrong for decades
also it helps explain the left turn under Xi Jinping during this period of extreme imperial-led reaction
e: goddamn birds scooping my posts
Edited by Urbandale ()
cars posted:Urbandale posted:so if we're cool with the resources needed to build socialism being extracted from sectors of the population inside the country in question(sectors that while not proletarian, we are ostensibly friendly to), why arent we cool with implementing policies that extract this wealth from foreign companies?
the easy answer to me is that you don't want foreign capitalists getting comfortable on your turf in the context of an increasingly "globalist" capitalist class. you want them to fear you. hoxha's answer would maybe be that socialist ownership stands opposed to foreign investment with control scattered among groups of workers that are not only sub-class but below even the level on which the proletariat can be organized within a nation. after all in every case being discussed above the question is of the socialist character of ownership, not of aspects supposedly inherent in the owners that would somehow redeem capitalist activity. but i'm no expert on hoxha, i am an anti imperialist of the broad type, but a guy, i own his & hers motorcycles and i vote
sure, you dont want foreign capitalists kicking around your country. im sure the soviets knew that when they invited all those nice americans in to build factories as well. i sort of see this as a damned if you do damned if you don't thing. rural forced collectivization and related 'anti-peasant' first five year plan policies are the number one complaint against stalin in the first place and where the majority of the pile of skulls history comes from(the 'holodomor' being the prime example). im not really sure what socialist or socialist-aspiring states are supposed to do to raise the level of productive forces (assuming they need to do so in the first place) if both foreign investment and forced collectivization are seen as negatives by other socialists (assuming they apply to the country in question at all).
Edited by Urbandale ()
as for the specific compalints hoxha had with the yugoslavian system it was largely 1) youre creating a bunch of managers 2) cooperatives turn proles into petty capitalists 3) foreign capital gets too much say. these are all fine to complain about imo, but while i could agree with a mao-esque argument that the yugoslavian policy counts as capitalist roader politics, i dont know that i would be able to agree with a maoist argument that its not socialism.
crossapply to deng + modern china since the jist of the argument is the same.
i think this crosses over to our appraisal of modern china and its socialist character. i have no problem saying that the chinese communist party is an organ with a strong revisionist wing, and this wing implemented capitalist reforms. i do have an issue saying its not socialist because of a leadership and policy change. i think this fits in with what mao said of the capitalist roaders during the GPCR. they can lead the country to capitalism, most certainly, and they should be opposed.
i think it's good to start with what people thought before world war one. the orthodox marxist position was that capitalism was anarchic because individual capitals sought to make money rather than meet social needs. this was because capitalism was unplanned. this resulted in crises and wars but also rapid technological development. a socialist society would remove competition between firms and substitute democratic administration. no one thought the soviet economy in the 1920s was socialist in the above sense.
stalin's position was that capitalism grew into communism after a proletarian revolution. socialism was the lower form of communism, achieved in the main in the 1930s, where labour was not a commodity but rather assigned as part of a general plan. this ended the oppression of labour. stalin personally believed that this meant socialism could not be overthrown from within except through something like a german invasion. this is why most internal threats were connected to foreign schemes. it should be said that profit was still technically a requirement for factory directors and such, but it wasn't that large of an issue compared to other indicators.
another issue in socialist economics was prices, for consumer and producer goods. in stalin's theories, producer goods could not be bought and sold on a market. so if a factory needed a piece of major equipment it would order it through the planning mechanisms. this did include costs, but you could (in general, and more in theory) not buy the equipment from other factories. for consumer goods, it was generally believed that inflation was impossible under socialism. the logic was simple - if efficiency in production goes up, prices for commodities should go down.
when stalin died, khrushchev was not in full control of the party but governed as part of a small group. there were a number intrigues after this where khrushchev neutralized top opponents, purged the party of large numbers of hardliners and opened it up to new recruits. khrushchev announced a number of smaller reforms which moved towards producer goods being commodities. but destalinization efforts went much further across eastern europe. the interventions in hungary and czechoslovakia were primarily due to the political reforms - both countries introduced reforms were state enterprises competed, as did poland. germany was seen as the most orthodox early on, and even they organized their industries such that they were supposed to self-finance within the scope of the particular industry.
mao did not exactly take stalin's argument in a straightforward way. basically he believed that socialism was the entire epoch of transformation from (late) capitalism to (full) communism, which commenced with a successful proletarian revolution. in feudal countries this was anticipated by new democracy, which would pass over into socialist transformation. however, this still entailed the abolition of a market in labour and the end of producer goods as marketed commodities. it also included adhesion of the principles of marxism-leninism. so the soviets were revisionist because they had abandoned socialist revolution and were dismantling the administrative aspects of socialism. this criticism reached a fever pitch in the 1960s when the soviets were introducing reforms that encouraged focus on profitability as a core feature of planning.
a simple question here is - why were they returning to profitability? part of the issue is that planning was proliferating indicators for managers which was making things very complex. when managers in countries like hungary decided to simplify indicators and focus on enterprise self-financing, it seemed to increase output and satisfy consumers better. instead of a list of characteristics a shoe would have to have, in other words, shoe factories might just try to make shoes that state department stores would actually buy. there was also the fact that eastern european economies were already re-integrating into the capitalist world-market - often taking on large foreign loans to buy different goods.
the soviet reforms in the mid-1960s were not designed to end the practice of state orders or let prices float. i read that soviet planners essentially considered it unacceptable to talk about price reform until very late in the game. part of the reason was because it was a consensus that floating prices would create mass protests. most liberal/keynesian economists who study the issue think that the pre-gorbachev economy was stable but not efficient. that is, there is no intrinsic reason why it couldn't persist, even if stagnant. the idea that the system was essentially impossible is actually a libertarian view which is very popular but unsubstantiated.
the gorbachev reforms were actually clusters of different reforms that were mostly half-attempted. the initial period was somewhat cautious. then gorbachev sort of surprised everyone by suggesting the new focus of reforms would be to speed up the economy. this was probably overly ambitious. a number of pilot projects were quickly converted to economy-wide crash programs. for example, state enterprises were put on a self-financing basis, state orders were reduced in favour of direct connections to retail and consumers, there was a temporary attempt at worker codetermination, etc.
one problem with the late gorbachev reforms was that they predicted modest deficits as part of a painful transition to self-financing for firms. instead these deficits quickly compounded while the soviets tried to paper over existing problems. within months these deficits became unsustainable which made the country ripe for international institutions to devastate.
anyway my interest now is reading more about the chinese debates in the early 1980s about whether commodity production continues under socialism (the view that it does won out), which seems possible to me.
take these excerpts from "Whence the Differences?" published in 1963 by the CPC to rebuke a French communist's criticism:
The truth is that the internal differences among the fraternal Parties were first brought into the open, not in the summer of 1960, but on the eve of the Camp David talks in September 1959 — on September 9, 1959, to be exact. On that day a socialist country, turning a deaf ear to China’s repeated explanations of the true situation and to China’s advice, hastily issued a statement on a Sino-Indian border incident through its official news agency. Making no distinction between right and wrong, the statement expressed “regret” over the border clash and in reality condemned China’s correct stand. They even said that it was “sad” and “stupid”. Here is the first instance in history in which a socialist country, instead of condemning the armed provocations of the reactionaries of a capitalist country, condemned another fraternal socialist country when it was confronted with such armed provocation. The imperialists and reactionaries immediately sensed that there were differences among the socialist countries, and they made venomous use of this erroneous statement to sow dissension. The bourgeois propaganda machines at the time made a great deal of it, saying that the statement was like a “diplomatic rocket launched at China” and that “the language of the statement was to some extent like that of a stern father coldly rebuking a child and telling him to behave himself”.
After the Camp David talks, the heads of certain comrades were turned and they became more and more in-temperate in their public attacks on the foreign and domestic policies of the Chinese Communist Party. They publicly abused the Chinese Communist Party as attempting “to test by force the stability of the capitalist system”, and as “craving for war like a cock for a fight”. They also attacked the Chinese Communist Party for its general line of socialist construction, its big leap forward and its people’s commune, and they spread the slander that the Chinese Party was carrying out an “adventurist” policy in its direction of the state.
They contravened the thesis of the Moscow Declaration that the U.S. imperialists “are becoming the centre of world reaction, the sworn enemies of the people”. They were especially ardent in lauding Dwight Eisenhower, the chieftain of U.S. imperialism, as one who had “a sincere desire for peace”, who “sincerely hopes to eliminate the state of ‘cold war’”, and who “also worries about ensuring peace just as we do”.
They violated the Leninist principle of peaceful co-existence between the two different social systems as set forth in the Moscow Declaration, and interpreted peaceful coexistence as nothing but ideological struggle and economic competition, saying: “The inevitable struggle between the two systems must be made to take the form exclusively of a struggle of ideas and peaceful emulation, as we say, or competition, to use a word more common in the capitalist lexicon.” They even extended peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems to the relations between oppressor and oppressed classes and between oppressor and oppressed nations, maintaining that for all countries peaceful coexistence is the road leading to socialism. All this rep-resents a complete departure from the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint of class struggle. They thus actually used the pretext of peaceful coexistence to negate the political struggle against imperialism and for the liberation cause of the people of all countries, and to negate the inter-national class struggle.
But no matter what pretexts they may resort to, whether “diplomatic language” or “flexibility”the comrades of a fraternal Party who spread these erroneous views cannot cover up their deviations from Marxism- Leninism and from the principles of the 1957 Moscow Declaration or absolve themselves from their responsibility for the creation of differences in the international communist movement.
In May 1960, the American U-2 spy plane intruded into the Soviet Union, and the four-power summit meeting in Paris was aborted. We then hoped that the com-rades who had so loudly sung the praises of the so-called spirit of Camp David would draw a lesson from these events, and would strengthen the unity of the fraternal Parties and countries in the common struggle against the imperialist policies of aggression and war. But, contrary to our hopes, at the Peking Session of the General Council of the World Federation of Trade Unions held early in June of the same year, certain comrades of fraternal Parties still refused to denounce Eisenhower, spread many erroneous views and opposed the correct views put forward by the Chinese comrades. It was a fact of particular gravity that late in June 1960 someone went so far as to wave his baton and launch an all-out and converging surprise attack on the Chinese Communist Party at the meeting of the fraternal Parties in Bucharest. This action was a crude violation of the principle that questions of common interest should be solved through consultation among fraternal Parties. It set an extremely bad precedent for the international communist movement.
Thorez and other comrades have alleged that the delegate of the Albanian Party of Labour “attacked the Communist Party of the Soviet Union” at the meeting in Bucharest. But all the comrades who attended the meeting are very well aware that the Albanian comrade did not attack anyone during the meeting. All he did was to adhere to his own views, disobey the baton and take exception to the attack on China. In the eyes of those who regard the relations between fraternal Parties as those between patriarchal father and son, it was indeed an appalling act of impudent insubordination for tiny Albania to dare to disobey the baton. From that time on they harboured a grudge against the Albanian comrades, employed all kinds of base devices against them and would not be satisfied until thet had destroyed them.
After the Bucharest meeting, some comrades who had attacked the Chinese Communist Party lost no time in taking a series of grave steps to apply economic and political pressure, even to the extent of perfidiously and unilaterally tearing up agreements and contracts they had concluded with a fraternal country, in disregard of international practice. These agreements and contracts are to be counted, not in twos or threes or in scores, but in hundreds. These malicious acts, which extended ideological differences to state relations, were out-and-out violations of proletarian internationalism and of the principles guiding relations among fraternal socialist countries as set forth in the Moscow Declaration. Instead of criticizing their own errors of great-power chauvinism, these comrades charged the Chinese Communist Party with the errors of “going it alone”, sectarianism, splitting, national communism, etc. Does this accord with communist ethics? Thorez and other comrades were aware of the facts, yet they dared not criticize those who actually committed the error of extending political and ideological disputes to the damage of state relations, but on the contrary charged the Chinese comrades with “mixing problems of state with ideological and political questions”. This attitude which confuses right and wrong and makes black white and white black is indeed deplorable.
It is clear from the foregoing facts that the aggravation of differences in the international communist movement after the Moscow Meeting of 1957 was due entirely to the fact that with respect to a series of important issues certain fraternal Party comrades committed increasingly serious violations of the common line unanimously agreed upon by the fraternal Parties and of the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries.
Edited by prikryl ()
Being aware of the entire complexity of the present situation, we hold at the same time that the existing differences should not be exaggerated and the colours laid too thick.
An objective analysis of the discussion going on in the communist movement shows that in many instances in the course of the polemics the differences that arise are artificially inflated and exacerbated, an overdue accent is made on disputed issues. The heat of polemics at times prevents a calm and sober appraisal of the substance of the problems that have arisen, eclipsing the main things that underlie our unity.
Steadfastly carrying out the common line agreed upon by the world communist movement, the C.P.S.U. is waging active struggle against imperialism, for the triumph of the great ideals of socialism and communism all over the globe. Our Party spares no efforts in the struggle to prevent a new world war, to strengthen peace and the security of the peoples. The C.P.S.U. and the Soviet Government by all means — economic, political, and even by rendering assistance in arms — support the national-liberation movement. Faithful to proletarian internationalism, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union always follows the militant slogan: "Workers of all countries, unite!" The C.P.S.U. works to strengthen the world socialist community to strengthen its influence on the entire course of historical development. The successes of communist construction in the Soviet Union are a contribution of our people to the cause of strengthening world socialism, raising its authority and force of attraction.
Our Party, having condemned the splitting activities of the Albanian leaders, has at the same time taken a number of steps towards normalizing the relations between the Albanian Party of Labour and the CPSU and other fraternal Parties. In spite of the fact that the leaders of the Albanian Party of Labour have recently been coming out with slanderous attacks on our Party and the Soviet people, we, being guided by supreme interests, do not relinquish the hope that the relations between the CPSU and the Albanian Party of Labour may be improved. At the end of February this year the CPSU Central Committee once again took the initiative and suggested to the Central Committee of the Albanian Party of Labour that a bilateral meeting be held between representatives of our two Parties. However, this comradely step on our part did not meet with due response on the part of the Albanian leadership. The leaders of the Albanian Party of Labour did not even deem it necessary to acknowledge our letter containing the CPSU Central Committee's proposal about the bilateral meetings. Having obviously later come to their senses, the Albanian leaders sent us a letter in which, after, some reservations and stipulations, they speak of such a meeting. If real desire is in fact shown, we are ready to have a meeting.
As far as Yugoslavia is concerned, we maintain, proceeding from an analysis and assessment of the objective economic and political conditions in that country, that it is a socialist country, and in our relations with it we strive to establish closer relations between the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia and the socialist commonwealth, in accordance with the policy pursued by the fraternal Parties for the cementing together of all the anti-imperialist forces of the world. We also take into consideration the definite positive tendencies shown of late in Yugoslavia's economic and socio-political life. Meanwhile the CPSU is aware of the serious differences that exist with the League of Communists of Yugoslavia on several ideological questions and considers it necessary to tell the Yugoslav comrades so frankly, criticizing those views of theirs which it finds wrong.
Of course, to prevent such a war it is necessary to continue strengthening the socialist system to the utmost and to rally all the forces of the international working-class and the national-liberation movement, to rally all democratic forces. Those who prize the interests of socialism and the interests of peace must do everything to frustrate the criminal designs of world reaction and to prevent it from unleashing a thermo-nuclear war and dragging hundreds of millions of people down into the grave with it. A sober appraisal of the inevitable consequences that a thermo-nuclear war would have for the whole of mankind and for the cause of socialism sets before Marxist-Leninists the need to do everything in our power to prevent a new world conflict.
The CPSU Central Committee firmly abides by the thesis of the 1960 Statement that "In a world divided into two systems, the only correct and reasonable principle of international relations is the principle of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems advanced by V. I. Lenin and further elaborated in the Moscow Declaration and Peace Manifesto of 1957, in the decisions of the 20th and 21st Congresses of the CPSU, and in the documents of other Communist and Workers' Parties."
Our Party, which the great Lenin educated in the spirit of relentless struggle against imperialism keeps in mind Lenin's warning that moribund capitalism is still able to cause humanity untold calamities. The Soviet Union is doing everything to boost its economy and to improve its defences on this basis; it is building up its armed might and maintaining its armed forces in a state of constant readiness. However, we have employed and will continue to employ our country's increasing might not to threaten anyone or to fan war passions, but to consolidate peace, prevent another world war, and defend our own country and the other socialist countries.
The policy of peaceful coexistence accords with the vital interests of all the peoples; it serves to strengthen the positions of socialism, to help the international influence of the socialist countries, and to increase the authority and influence of the Communists.
Peaceful coexistence does not imply conciliation between socialist and bourgeois ideologies. That policy would spell abandonment of Marxism-Leninism and obstruction of the building of socialism. Bourgeois ideology is a sort of Trojan horse, which imperialism is trying to sneak into the ranks of the communist and working-class movement. The peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems presupposes an unremitting ideological, political and economic struggle between the two social systems, and the class struggle of the working people inside the countries of the capitalist system, including armed struggle when the peoples find that necessary, and the steady advance of the national-liberation movement among the peoples of the colonial and dependent countries.
CPC notice: THE LEADERS OF THE CPSU ARE BETRAYERS OF THE DECLARATION AND THE STATEMENT OF 1957 AND 1960, 1965
The Declaration and the Statement lay down a revolutionary line. But the Khrushchov revisionists are pressing forward with their anti-revolutionary line of "peaceful coexistence", "peaceful competition" and "peaceful transition". They themselves do not want revolution and forbid others to make revolution. They themselves oppose the armed revolutionary struggles of the oppressed nations and forbid others to support armed revolutionary struggles.
Edited by prikryl ()
prikryl posted:“The inevitable struggle between the two systems must be made to take the form exclusively of a struggle of ideas and peaceful emulation, as we say, or competition, to use a word more common in the capitalist lexicon.”
who brought back bukharin
https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sino-soviet-split/
Two articles of particular interest too long to turn into excerpt form that play into modern debates between "tankies," leftcoms and "maoists" that are not frequently cited:
CPC document "Apologists of Neo-Colonialism" targeting CPSU:
https://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/polemic/neocolon.htm
CPSU document "Certain Aspects of the Inner Life of the CPC" blasting lack of CPC democracy:
https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sino-soviet-split/cpsu/certain-aspects.htm
Edited by prikryl ()
In noting these new developments, the International Executive Committee of the Fourth International reasserted its strong disagreement with Peking’s position on a number of points...
(2) Peking’s concept that it is necessary to reinforce the repressive apparatus in order to handle conflicts arising from continuous intensification of the class struggle during the transition from capitalism to socialism.
you wot m8
Urbandale posted:4th intl statement is great
you wot m8
the argument is basically how they interpret "state and revolution". if the state is a tool of class repression, and the repression is now against a small minority, there is no reason why the repressive apparatus should be big in a functioning worker's state.
mao himself didn't think capitalist-roaders were a large number in his party. i think he estimated them once at 5% of the leadership during the cultural revolution.
Urbandale posted:dont worry guys, kronstadt was a one off, wont happen again
cliffites believe that crushing the kronstadt revolt was necessary but proof that the worker's state basically wasn't functioning anymore. and no i'm not entirely sure how they support the government after that then.
littlegreenpills posted:maybe there are a whole lot of different ways to be socialist, and some/most of them are just really crappy
reposting for a new page.
also, re: soviet computerization you might find these interesting getfiscal
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lnvr5k23244tj7i/Slava%20Gerovitch%20-%20From%20Newspeak%20to%20Cyberspeak%20-%20A%20History%20of%20Soviet%20Cybernetics.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2otvizzryw7jqu5/Slava%20Gerovitch%20-%20InterNyet.pdf?dl=0
Edited by Urbandale ()
Edited by Urbandale ()
Urbandale posted:prikryl posted:“The inevitable struggle between the two systems must be made to take the form exclusively of a struggle of ideas and peaceful emulation, as we say, or competition, to use a word more common in the capitalist lexicon.”
who brought back bukharin
lol maybe they just had bad translators back then
Edited by Crow ()
Let's coordinate struggle against imperialism by peaceful development and liberation of colonies
*waves paper in presidium*
"This ppl are saying 'Surrender all national territories to Hitler' Wtf"
China saved the world economy for a few decades (with help from the massive primitive accumulation from the looting of the former USSR):
but those days are over and China's "left" turn better come sooner rather than later:
The USSR is a more complicated question. Unlike the Stalin era, when the USSR was unaffected by the great depression, the revisionist USSR was equally affected by the 1973 crisis and was stagnant since (what is happening to the USA now):
While the USSR didn't have rampant unemployment, exploitation, and inequality like modern China, it's clear that the law of value forced it's way back into predominance (which is why capitalism cannot exist within socialism) as the USSR became more dependent on oil exports, which as a natural resource do not correlate to socially necessary labor time (in the short term). the same thing happened in every revisionist country after the 1971 Nixon shock and 1973 oil crisis: North Korea racked up massive debt from capitalist nations and became reliant on imports of means of production from Japan; Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia turned to the IMF to delay the crisis of profitability in their economies (because they didn't have the option of imperialism like you point out); Algeria became more and more dependent on oil until the oil glut collapsed the entire socialist character of the government; etc. I think the USSR was socialist, but because of revisionism in the party, the pressure of world capitalism, and the contradictory nature of socialism as a mode of production between capitalism and communism which can still go either way, it was subject to the law of value and therefore relied more and more on oil to maintain a good standard of living and generous trade relations with the socialist world. This fact alone made it truly unique and its collapse such a blow to the world socialist movement, even if it wasn't what we would like to think of as revolutionary socialist.
*All graphs from The Failure of Capitalist Production - Andrew Kliman
**We can agree with the underlying fall in the rate of profit Kliman illustrates without agreeing that all socialist states were in fact state-capitalist, as Michael Roberts does at thenextrecession blog and in his books.
Edited by babyhueypnewton ()
Crow posted:lol maybe they just had bad translators back then
cpsu to cpc:
As for your attempts to juggle with words like “great-power chauvinism”, “self-important”, “domineering”, “inveterate habit of posing as the ‘father party’”, “God’s will”, etc. we have to tell you that the use of such expressions only testifies to the weakness of your position and to your wish in this way to cover up your own activities, which you try to ascribe to us.
For four years the fraternal Parties of the whole world have been appealing to the CC CPC to approach the matter from the point of view of the common interests and to cease its attempts to impose its erroneous “general line” on the world communist movement. However, the leadership of the CPC has not only failed to heed the opinion of fraternal Parties but with growing ambition is posing as the sole heir of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and the supreme judge of the theory and practice of communism. After all, it is none other than the leadership of the CPC that is attempting to dictate to the Communist Parties of the capitalist countries when they should begin the revolution and by what paths they should accomplish it. This leadership of the CPC pronounces irrevocable sentence on which country should be considered socialist and which not. It is the same leadership that affixes to whole Parties the labels of “correct” or “incorrect” and, depending upon whom it likes, declares some to be “outstanding Marxists” and others “modern revisionists”.
Your great-power habits also appear in your last short letter when, addressing the CC CPSU, you demand that it send to you its letter of February 12. You do not request, but demand. One asks, by what right? Can it really be that you consider that anyone will take your tone seriously, become frightened and rush as fast as his legs can carry him to fulfil your every demand? This is not merely rude but simply ridiculous.
Your letter and its deliberately rude tone compel us to reflect once again: with what purpose was it sent? After all, nobody will believe that such an unseemly message was sent in the interests of the strengthening of friendship with the CPSU, of which you ceaselessly talk to your own people and the international communist movement, thus deceiving them. Anyone who acquaints himself with this letter will see that it is aimed at the aggravation of differences and the exacerbation of the situation in the communist movement.
Losing its sense of reality, the CC CPC attempted to present us with an ultimatum — it demanded that it be sent the letter of the CC CPSU of February 12. When we politely explained that no Communist Party should permit itself to talk to another in the language of ultimatums, you alleged, obviously obscuring the issue, that there is no difference between the words “request” and “demand” in the Chinese language.
We hold a much higher opinion of the Chinese language. The Chinese are a great people with an ancient culture and understand the shades of meaning between “request” and “demand” perfectly well. It may even happen that the words are the same but the music is quite different. Incidentally, the word “request” was found in the Chinese language, after all, when there was a desire to use it. We hope that from now on the language of ultimatums will be excluded forever from our relations.
Why, then, was it found necessary to permit oneself to address a fraternal Party in this way? Why was your entire letter of February 27, like the preceding ones, written in an exceptionally rude and impertinent tone, and studded with imprecations and insulting expressions? To irritate us, to force us to depart from principled ideological and communist positions and embark upon a “squabble at the mouth of the well”? Apparently these were indeed your intentions.
Seeking political capital, you constantly deck yourselves out as “knights” of equality and at the same time try to convince people that the CPSU is clinging to the role of a “father party”. We cannot avoid the impression that all this is done solely to enable you to fill the role of a “father party” yourselves.
Edited by prikryl ()
the main reason was that socialism was conceived of as a sort of material problem that was solved by political decisions, and the main function of planners was to open bottlenecks and mobilize labour. i guess they mean that if, say, you had a shortage of rifles during the war, the job would be to find the things you need for that (wood, metals, gunpowder, etc.) and create a chain of supply that could deliver. the chief mathematical task would be to simply ensure a materials balance (the total plan of production cannot outstrip actual resources), which is not that sophisticated mathematically. mathematical optimization developed later (via kantorovich), which suggests that optimal production is not always this straightforward linear chain of supply. (you can sometimes increase production greatly by doing things that seem counterintuitive at first.)