Peter,
An old (ex) Marxist professor of mine once pointed toward Hitler as a way a workingclass revolution could take. I think in some ways Marx himself projected this but I may be wrong. I recently read Trotsky's discussion of Lenin's letter and it seemed to me the "worker's state" was set up in such a way that Stalin would happen sooner or later.
My inclination in watching the Russian movies is to root for the reds while the rest of the family roots for the whites. I guess my feeling is we need to take the good, bad, and ugly in examining how socialist ideals and practice interrelate. I have a hard time when we say we have never had socialism in much the same way we talk about democracy. Its seems to me both exist "materially" with certain consequences.
In general I think Russia (See Bruner 1998) does a hell of a better job at confronting the cost of their mistakes than the states - we won, we were right. Bruner in making his case that "historians construct history, why can't our students" pointed out how his Russian comrades were asking pointed questions about how history should be told - its always a story - and why we are not having a similar discussion in the states.
Wertsch has an interesting discussion too in his discussion of appropriation / resistance in which in many ways the U.S. education system did what the Russian one could not. So, I agree with Eugene, but would point out those stories are being told about Russian history, not the U.S. I come from a state where a (Berger) senator was refused a seat in congress not once, but twice after being elected overwelmingly by the voters. Most new deal programs that we are resinding were initiated by socialists who had control of the state legislature. A recent news broadcast was talking about the Russians celebrating "World Women's Day" yet had no idea it initially began in the states. Consistently through history the Militia was sent out, police dogs went a chewing to squash the working class (we are told it was because they were immigrants). Madison was very explicit in the federalist papers who the evil fractions were - the working class. The constitution was designed explicitly to protect the "minority" which was not minority opinion but capitalists.
So, my feelings are there is a lot of history that has been silenced on both sides.
---- Original Message -----
From: Peter Farruggio
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2000 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: socialist societies
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
________________________________________________________
1stUp.com - Free the Web
Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 01:00:38 PDT