Nate,
The best way I can reply is to say that to accept something by its label
(either by what it calls itself or by what it is called) is a pretty
idealist method of seeing reality, in other words: non-materialist. After
all Hitler called his movement "National Socialist" because socialism was
hugely powerful in Germany at the time, and it was a quick way to rip off
disaffected members from the SPD (socialists, 2nd International). If we
accept that the nazis were ever "socialists" just because of their label
and some of their rhetoric, then we enter a dream world where the term
socialist has no mooring, no material grounding, and it's a waste of time
to continue discussion.
The point is, one must study the meaning of the concept of socialism as it
evolved in the public debates and writings of those who fought to bring it
to fruition, those who formed socialist and then communist parties and
tried to make a revolution. I include a quote below to show that from Marx
through Lenin and Trotsky (who all led large movements of co-thinkers who
made history) the idea of socialism was that of an international economic
system based on the world's wealth. The idea of "socialism" was never one
of merely holding political power in an economically backward country. If
you choose to call the Soviet Union "socialist" because Stalin said so,
then I think you're wrong, and the discussion about the role of "socialism"
in history is pointless because of semantical differences.
Here's the quote:
Writing after history’s first great revolutionary wave in 1848, Karl Marx
insisted that a revolution in any state in Europe could not last long without
engulfing England:
“Any upheaval in economic relations in any country of the European
continent, in the whole European continent without England, is a storm in a
teacup. Industrial and commercial relations within each nation are governed
by its intercourse with other nations, and depend on its relations with
the world market. But the world market is dominated by England and England
is dominated by the bourgeoisie.”
— “The Revolutionary Movement,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 1 January 1849,
reprinted in The Revolution of 1848-49 (1972)
Without being able to build upon the world division of labor created by
capitalism it would be impossible to create the material abundance
necessary for the construction of a socialist society. “Want,” as Marx had
earlier put it, would “merely be made general, and destitution, the
struggle for necessities, and all the old filthy business would necessarily
be reproduced” (The German Ideology [written 1845-46]). Moreover,
as long as economically powerful capitalist nations continued to exist,
reaction would hold a bastion from which to mobilize for a counterattack.
Written almost 80 years before Stalin promulgated the dogma of “building
socialism in one country,” Marx’s words are a savage indictment of this
absurdity.
At 04:49 AM 6/17/00, you wrote:
>Peter (F),
>
>As I read your message I wondered about your statement,
>
>"In other words, these countries had never experienced a workers
>revolution. Human history rarely follows a set script, there's lots of
>synthesis around familiar patterns and within historically determined
>constraints. Who could have predicted stalinism in the 19th century (or
>even during the Russian Revolution)? But in retrospect it makes sense
>that it happened. But please don't call it "socialist"!!! We haven't
>seen socialism yet."
>
>I guess I question somewhat the utopian way in which socialism is defined
>in the above quote. I mean there are romantic notions of capitalism also
>and we could say - oh we have not experienced capitalism yet. Capitalism
>too never achieved its "ideal" form and my take is Marx approached the
>topic materiatically.
>
>I guess what I am asking and maybe this gets close to Eugene's comments is
>that when discussing socialism should not we approach it materiastically.
>Like capitalism, socialism has a material basis that should not be left
>unexamined. Stalin is a distortion, one could even argue a capitalist in
>certain regards, but it seems there is a material basis to this thing we
>call socialism that can take one farther than "we have not experienced it yet".
>
>Nate
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 01:00:36 PDT