I don’t think it’s particularly productive to back up controversial claims within the Marxist current with statements like “it’s clear that xyz” or “it’s without question.” These topics are controversial because they aren’t clear and are questionable claims.
As an example, most Marxists don’t agree that the CPSU formed a “ruling class.” Socialized production requires administration, planning, and management, and we know from writings such as Pat Sloan’s Soviet Democracy that the soviet model had popular input and direction. The claim that the CPSU constituted a ruling class definitely needs more support. Same with the idea that Stalin was a revisionist.
Further, the idea that the CPC is a bourgeois party is also questionable. The State maintains firm control over the large firms and key industries in China, and billionaires like Jack Ma that try to undermine that are removed from the power they are allowed. Trajectory-wise, we see an increase in the proportion of the economy in the Public Sector, a fall in the number of billionaires, and a rise in the Proletariat’s purchasing power and living conditions, with mass, popular support. I would argue that this is a more classical approach to Marxism, which I have already done here and won’t repeat.
As for the national liberatory movements, the fact that Marxist-Leninists managed to successfully liberate themselves from Colonialism and Imperialism is a fact that should be celebrated, and further still the idea that the Cuban and Veitnamese revolutions were bourgeois revolutions demands special skepticism, considering topics like land reform and nationalization of industry in the hands of the state and Working Class were some of the most critical among early policy.
Flipping this on its head, what does rejecting AES as valid Socialism accomplish? What does it leave us to support? The answer is waiting around for a “perfect, pure revolution” that will be qualitatively different from the numerous existing Socialist revolutions in some factor, requiring us to interrogate why such a qualitatively different revolution even can occur in the first place. Jones Manoel was spot-on in Western Marxism Loves Purity and Martyrdom, Not Real Revolution.
I am not saying this to be mean, or rude, or be “correct.” Criticism and self-criticism are key components of finding correct theory and practice. I am trying to say that if you want to effectively challenge dominant Marxist positions, you need more ammo.
I don’t think it’s particularly productive to back up controversial claims within the Marxist current with statements like “it’s clear that xyz” or “it’s without question.” These topics are controversial because they aren’t clear and are questionable claims.
I really appreciate this and you are right - the claims I made do go against ML theory, and whether something is right or wrong in this case is dependent on one’s views and perspectives (as in intra-Marxism) rather than cold, hard, unquestionable facts. I will definitely try to avoid such loaded language in the future.
In essence, I do largely agree with you - the material conditions in the historically socialist countries (USSR specifically in this case but can also more or less be applied to others) be it their peasant problem or being isolated due to international revolutions failing did require them to do what they had done and develop using state capitalism or “building socialism in one state”, and they were successful in that regard. Same applies to the anti-colonial national liberation movements - they were successful and historically progressive and indeed should be celebrated.
However, the issue that this is a win for (state) capitalism and all the baggage that comes with it rather than actual socialism, given how socialist mode of production was never realized and arguments such as “people’s billionaires who will get punished by going against the party” or “the economy was nationalized” don’t define socialism. Wage labor remained (therefore surplus extraction too), commodity production and markets both within the country and interaction with international capitalist world market had remained (Why Russia isn’t socialist talks about this). One could also make an argument that even in those countries where capitalists got done away with (which is a proletarian W) but state capitalism persisted, the functions of the capitalist remained and were carried out by mere managers, like how Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific points out:
Partial recognition of the social character of the productive forces forced upon the capitalists themselves. Taking over of the great institutions for production and communication, first by joint-stock companies, later in by trusts, then by the State. The bourgeoisie demonstrated to be a superfluous class. All its social functions are now performed by salaried employees.
And again to reiterate, rather than being a win for socialism, it’s instead a win for a regressive form of it which is state capitalism that’s comparable to social democracy.
As about your point about the rejection of AES, that’s not my argument at all - instead of rejecting any attempt outright and waiting for a perfect revolution, one should instead support all revolutionary attempts but, most importantly, realize when the revolution had failed/ended instead of clinging onto false hope which is something that ML’s tend to do at least from my perspective. Of course, when a revolution fails depends on ones perspective, but from mine it’s when the proletarian revolution (which must be internationalist) fails to spread and a country has to start fully focusing inwards for its survival within global capitalism and the inevitable participation in it, like what happened in USSR in 1920’s - at that point, it’s only a matter of time until the country falls to revisionism, degeneration of socialist ideas and the aforementioned full reintegration into global capitalist system.
That being said, I really do appreciate your responses, even though some of them might be too long for me to respond to.
I don’t think it’s particularly productive to back up controversial claims within the Marxist current with statements like “it’s clear that xyz” or “it’s without question.” These topics are controversial because they aren’t clear and are questionable claims.
As an example, most Marxists don’t agree that the CPSU formed a “ruling class.” Socialized production requires administration, planning, and management, and we know from writings such as Pat Sloan’s Soviet Democracy that the soviet model had popular input and direction. The claim that the CPSU constituted a ruling class definitely needs more support. Same with the idea that Stalin was a revisionist.
Further, the idea that the CPC is a bourgeois party is also questionable. The State maintains firm control over the large firms and key industries in China, and billionaires like Jack Ma that try to undermine that are removed from the power they are allowed. Trajectory-wise, we see an increase in the proportion of the economy in the Public Sector, a fall in the number of billionaires, and a rise in the Proletariat’s purchasing power and living conditions, with mass, popular support. I would argue that this is a more classical approach to Marxism, which I have already done here and won’t repeat.
As for the national liberatory movements, the fact that Marxist-Leninists managed to successfully liberate themselves from Colonialism and Imperialism is a fact that should be celebrated, and further still the idea that the Cuban and Veitnamese revolutions were bourgeois revolutions demands special skepticism, considering topics like land reform and nationalization of industry in the hands of the state and Working Class were some of the most critical among early policy.
Flipping this on its head, what does rejecting AES as valid Socialism accomplish? What does it leave us to support? The answer is waiting around for a “perfect, pure revolution” that will be qualitatively different from the numerous existing Socialist revolutions in some factor, requiring us to interrogate why such a qualitatively different revolution even can occur in the first place. Jones Manoel was spot-on in Western Marxism Loves Purity and Martyrdom, Not Real Revolution.
I am not saying this to be mean, or rude, or be “correct.” Criticism and self-criticism are key components of finding correct theory and practice. I am trying to say that if you want to effectively challenge dominant Marxist positions, you need more ammo.
I really appreciate this and you are right - the claims I made do go against ML theory, and whether something is right or wrong in this case is dependent on one’s views and perspectives (as in intra-Marxism) rather than cold, hard, unquestionable facts. I will definitely try to avoid such loaded language in the future.
In essence, I do largely agree with you - the material conditions in the historically socialist countries (USSR specifically in this case but can also more or less be applied to others) be it their peasant problem or being isolated due to international revolutions failing did require them to do what they had done and develop using state capitalism or “building socialism in one state”, and they were successful in that regard. Same applies to the anti-colonial national liberation movements - they were successful and historically progressive and indeed should be celebrated.
However, the issue that this is a win for (state) capitalism and all the baggage that comes with it rather than actual socialism, given how socialist mode of production was never realized and arguments such as “people’s billionaires who will get punished by going against the party” or “the economy was nationalized” don’t define socialism. Wage labor remained (therefore surplus extraction too), commodity production and markets both within the country and interaction with international capitalist world market had remained (Why Russia isn’t socialist talks about this). One could also make an argument that even in those countries where capitalists got done away with (which is a proletarian W) but state capitalism persisted, the functions of the capitalist remained and were carried out by mere managers, like how Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific points out:
And again to reiterate, rather than being a win for socialism, it’s instead a win for a regressive form of it which is state capitalism that’s comparable to social democracy.
As about your point about the rejection of AES, that’s not my argument at all - instead of rejecting any attempt outright and waiting for a perfect revolution, one should instead support all revolutionary attempts but, most importantly, realize when the revolution had failed/ended instead of clinging onto false hope which is something that ML’s tend to do at least from my perspective. Of course, when a revolution fails depends on ones perspective, but from mine it’s when the proletarian revolution (which must be internationalist) fails to spread and a country has to start fully focusing inwards for its survival within global capitalism and the inevitable participation in it, like what happened in USSR in 1920’s - at that point, it’s only a matter of time until the country falls to revisionism, degeneration of socialist ideas and the aforementioned full reintegration into global capitalist system.
That being said, I really do appreciate your responses, even though some of them might be too long for me to respond to.