The Bastardisation of Socialism and its Enemies

[Szaviels]

Karl Marx birthed the uptopian dream that is Socialism, Granted, Decades prior during the French Revolution of 1789 and subsequent revolutions in 1848 were what we would label today as "Socialist Movements". Nevertheless, at present, it is just that, as dream, and we sleepwalkers. We must wake up and realise that ideology only gets you so far, Realisation and action are entwined together, Knowledge is useless unless applied. 

That being said, It is important to note that we must not lead to the disasterous repeat of the iron handed betrayers of Socialist thought, Namely the USSR, People's Republic of China, Democratic Republic of China. Stalinism, Leninism and Maoism at its core stay true to the socialism of Karl Marx, however, It is twisted and warped so much to allow for a hedonistic and brutal dictatorship to control the freedoms of the people. What is Socialism at its core? A philosophy of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. It offers a chance for all to be free, to have a voice, to break free of the aristocratic stasis of politics, where money talks and true democracy walks, Take Donald Trump as an example, Or David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Ed Milliband, David Milliband. All are from wealthy families, all have not an inkling of what is best for the country, They are paid amounts of money that are not earned. Running and maintaining a country, protecting its people, ensuring their freedoms, the functionality of infrastructure are not occupations for a politician, they are duties. Just as a mother has a duty to care for her child, or a fireman to put out a blaze. 

Carrrying on my original point, We must not allow a stigma to redevelop around Socialism, I say WE. Socialism is not evil. Evil individuals take what is good and chuckle as it burns at their own hands. The world is opposed to socialism as it is. America, Western Europe, All because they see it as a threat to teh capitalist aristocracy they are so comfortable being part of. We need change, Radical change is however in my personal opinion and from research and observation, bad, when a change is forced the results are imperfect and not as they should be. A gradual steady change that can be closely monitored and controlled to ensure the best results is more wise. It may not feel like it, but, we as the people have the power. We are the majority. We need not countries ran by long established aristocratic families that only do politics for attention, personal gain or tradition. We need dedicated advocants of freedom, equality and democracy. 

I would like to see some discussion as I am interested as to your opinions and queries on this subject. By no means do I claim that my opinion is unique, For all I know this could have been written many a time on this site. But, Like I said, We all have a voice, an opinion, a right. 

Sincerely, 

Szaviels,

[jondwhite]

Even the Fabian Society don't seem to propose a gradual road to socialism these days. I don't see why we should. Also you misunderstand Marxism if you label it utopian. Where was the core of Marxism in any of the dictatorships you mention? I don't see it.

[Szaviels]

Marxism at its core remove class boundaries, and at the start of the  movements in China, Korea and Russia, they did that, and could well have made a system that stood true and stood firm, free of contestation. Opportunists, Such as the mentioned Mao, Kim Il-Sung and Lenin manipulated the ideal of equality and socialism to create a hysteria, a way of controling the people into surrendering the freedoms they had just fought to secure. Filling the minds of the people with propaganda and lies. The Russian Revolution is perhaps the most accurate way of showing how it started with Marxism but warped into something else entirely. It started with the driving force of a class struggle, yet devolving into something of the same ilk, creating a new class, the political dictatorial class under Stalin (Earlier Lenin). The use of the word "Utopian" is merelyu my opinion, however I shall explain as you were good enough to inquire. A society that have no class coundaries where everone has the same opportunities be they rich or poor, is to me, beautiful, as opposed to the ugliness of the capitalist aristocracy of current.

[robbo203]

Szaviels,  I think you need to be clear what you mean by  "class".  Class does not strictly denote income differentials – at least in the Marxian sense – though it will entail such differences. Rather, class has to do with one's relationship to the means of wealth production e,g as a capitalist (or owner of capital) or worker. In the Soviet Union , a tiny  minority – the state capitalist class or nomenklatura  – effectively owned the means of wealth production in a collective class sense via is complete control over the state machine and to the exclusion of the great majority.  De facto ownerhsip means the same thing as ultimate control.  If you exercise ultimate control over something, you own it, and vice versa.  This is why genuine socialism has to be a democratically controlled society. Right from the start the Soviet union sought to shore up and entrench minority control, and therefore de facto ownership, of the means of wealth production.  This went hand in hand with spiralling income inequality. Lenin, around the time of the Bolshevik revolution had, seemingly, enthusiastically endorsed the principle of equal pay for everyone – what is called uravnilovka or income levelling – as a political tactic to gain working class support. However, in less than a year later, in an address given in April 1918 (published as "The Soviets at Work") he abjectly recanted: “We were forced now to make use of the old bourgeois method and agreed a very high remuneration for the services of the bourgeois specialists. All those who are acquainted with the facts understand this, but not all give sufficient thought to the significance of such a measure on the part of the proletarian state. It is clear that such a measure is a compromise, that it is a departure from the principles of the Paris Commune and of any proletarian rule."  This polarisation of wealth and income is an inevitable aspect of capitalism which any government seeking to administer such a system would be compelled to promote. Stalin too recognised the importance of unequal remuneration upon coming to power and having to fashion policy to fit the needs of the developing system of Soviet state capitalism.  But Stalin but went a lot further than Lenin in denouncing the "evil of equality" and declaring Marxism to be the "enemy of equalisation" (cited in Alex F. Dowlah, John E. Elliott. 1997, The Life and Times of Soviet Socialism,Praeger , Wesrport p.82) Uravnilovka, was vigorously opposed on the grounds that it undermined incentives and economic performance.  And most surreally of all, Foreign Minister Molotov once declared that “Bolshevik policy demands a resolute struggle against equalitarians as accomplices of the class enemy, as elements hostile to socialism." (Tony Cliff, State Capitalism in Russia, p.69 http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/index.htm).  It was perhaps not surprising, therefore, that in Russia, the ratio between the lowest and highest wages steadily increased from 1:1.8 just after the Bolshevik Revolution to 1:40 in 1950 (Ossowski S, Patterson S, Class Structure in  the Social Consciousness, Free Press of Glencoe, New York 1963, 116). While such differentials appear modest by western standards, they hardly begin to reflect the true picture. There were a number of other factors that massively augmented the level of inequality within Soviet Union and its satellites.  These included:1) The widespread practice of multiple or plural salaries among the Soviet elite2) The “packet system” or "thirteenth month" bonus system whereby some members of the nomenklatura were secretly paid for an additional month in every year by the central authorities as a reward for their loyalty, as reported by Medvedev 3) Payments in kind of all sorts – such as free dachas, chauffer driven cars and foreign holidays – which were massively skewed in favour of the Soviet elite such that the higher up one was in the social hierarchy the larger this component of your income is likely to be in relative and absolute terms4) Corruption, bribery and backhanders from the black economy representing a hidden transfer of wealth to the Soviet elite who were well placed to benefit from this.  John Fleming and John Micklewright in their paper "Income Distribution, Economic Systems and Transition" cite the work of researchers like Morrison who, using data from the 1970s, found that countries like Poland and the Soviet Union had relatively high levels of income inequality, registering gini coefficients of 0.31 in both cases, which put them on a par with Canada (0.30) and the USA (0.34) (http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/eps70.pdf).  According to Roy Medvedev (Khrushchev: The Years in Power, Columbia University Press. 1976, 540), taking into account not only their inflated "salaries" but also the many privileges and perks enjoyed by the Soviet elite (who even had access to their own retail outlets stocking western goods and various other facilities from which the general public was physically excluded) the ratio between low and high earners was more like 1:100.  Some amongst the Soviet elite became very wealthy in their own right and a much quoted source in this regard is a pamphlet published in 1945 by the Russia Today Society (London) called "Soviet Millionaires", written by Reg Bishop, a supporter of the Soviet regime, that proudly boasted of the existence of rouble millionaires there as an indicator of economic success. Some amongst the Soviet elite, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, moved on to transmogrify into the oligarchs of modern day Russia, drawing on their extensive power and influence built up in the Soviet era.  As one report notes:  According to a 1995 study conducted by the Russian Academy of Sciences, more than 60 percent of Russia's wealthiest millionaires, and 75 percent of the new political elite, are former members of the communist nomenklatura , and 38 percent of Russia's businesspeople held economic positions in the CPSU(http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-11420.html).

[Dave B]

 Hi Robbo is the evil of equality stalin thing this one do you suppose? This Doc  is quite and important one for Stalin Watchers I think J. V. Stalin NEW CONDITIONS — NEW TASKSIN ECONOMIC CONSTRUCTIONSpeech Deliveredat a Conference of Economic Executives,June 23, 1931Pravda, No. 183,July 5, 1931From J. V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism,Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1976pp. 532-59.Based on J. V. Stalin, Works,Foreign Languages Publishing House,Moscow, 1955Vol. 13, pp. 53-82.  …………..In order to put an end to this evil we must abolish wage equalization and discard the old wage scales. In order to put an end to this evil we must draw up wage scales that will take page 538 into account the difference between skilled and unskilled labour, between heavy and light work. We cannot tolerate a situation where a rolling-mill worker in the iron and steel industry earns no more than a sweeper. We cannot tolerate a situation where a locomotive driver earns only as much as a copying clerk. Marx and Lenin said that the difference between skilled and unskilled labour would exist even under socialism, even after classes had been abolished; that only under communism would this difference disappear and that, consequently, even under socialism "wages" must be paid according to work performed and not according to needs. But the equalitarians among our economic executives and trade-union officials do not agree with this and believe that under our Soviet system this difference has already disappeared. Who is right, Marx and Lenin or the equalitarians? It must be assumed that it is Marx and Lenin who are right. But it follows from this that whoever draws up wage scales on the "principle" of wage equalization, without taking into account the difference between skilled and unskilled labour, breaks with Marxism, breaks with Leninism.     In every branch of industry, in every factory, in every shop, there is a leading group of more or less skilled workers who first and foremost must be retained if we really want to ensure a constant labour force in the factories. These leading groups of workers are the principal link in production. By retaining them in the factory, in the shop, we can retain the whole labour force and radically prevent the fluidity of manpower. But how can we retain them in the factories? We can retain them only by promoting them to higher positions, by raising the level of their wages, by introducing a system of wages that will give the worker his due according to qualification. page 539      And what does promoting them to higher positions and raising their wage level mean, what can it lead to as far as unskilled workers are concerned? It means, apart from everything else, opening up prospects for the unskilled worker and giving him an incentive to rise higher, to rise to the category of a skilled worker…………..  http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/NCNT31.html

[robbo203]

Dave B wrote:

 Hi Robbo is the evil of equality stalin thing this one do you suppose? 

 Hi Dave, Not too sure about that but came across the quote in the text mentioned. Incidentally you wil love this site with a wealth of handy quotes reflecting the evolution of Soviet state capitalism:http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrchap1.html Check it out!

[Anonymous]

Szaviels wrote:

Marxism at its core remove class boundaries, and at the start of the  movements in China, Korea and Russia, they did that, and could well have made a system that stood true and stood firm, free of contestation. Opportunists, Such as the mentioned Mao, Kim Il-Sung and Lenin manipulated the ideal of equality and socialism to create a hysteria, a way of controling the people into surrendering the freedoms they had just fought to secure. Filling the minds of the people with propaganda and lies. The Russian Revolution is perhaps the most accurate way of showing how it started with Marxism but warped into something else entirely. It started with the driving force of a class struggle, yet devolving into something of the same ilk, creating a new class, the political dictatorial class under Stalin (Earlier Lenin). The use of the word "Utopian" is merelyu my opinion, however I shall explain as you were good enough to inquire. A society that have no class coundaries where everone has the same opportunities be they rich or poor, is to me, beautiful, as opposed to the ugliness of the capitalist aristocracy of current.

 It sounds like left wing reformism, or romanticism., the main purpose of socialism is not salary equality, it is no salary at all There was nothing of Marxism or socialism  within the Bolsheviks, and the problems of the Soviet Union did not start with Stalin, it started before the coup took place, at the very beginning the slogan of the Bolshevik was Land, bread and freedom. Those are reformist Jacobin stands, the same purposes  of  the Russian PopulistsJulius Martov who was  a Menshevik had a better perception about the real meaning of socialism than all the Bolsheviks leaders, and Stalin in one of his books he was able to prove he  knew the real meaning of socialism, but instead he did support the development of state capitalism. Who ever try to depart his or her analysis from the experience of the Soviet Union will always end on mistaken positions.The revolts that took place in China, and Korea have nothing to do with Marxism and socialism, and the purpose was not to remove the class differentiation, on the contrary, the party leaders became the new ruling class, and capitalism was the real mode of production established, and wage slavery was established, and one of the main purpose of socialism is to eliminate wage slavery .Those so called revolutions did not provide any freedom to the working class, it is the opposite way, a new form of enslavement emerged within  their own society, and the means of production were transferred to the hands of the state, and the new capitalist class was at the level of the state apparatus, and that new form is known as state capitalism, which was even recognized by Lenin and Bukharin, the worst thing is that they said that it was a form of capitalism for the benefits of the majority of the workers, since when capitalism have benefited the majority of the workers ? We have never experienced any socialist revolution around the world, not even France or Germany were closer to a workers revolution, most of those revolts took place in countries or region where capitalism was not the dominant mode of production, most of them were economically backward society which did not have the material pre-condition to establish a new society based on free access.Social classes are defined according to the relationship of human beings with the means of productions, it is not based on income, that is reason why the capitalists themselves have created the wrong conception of the so called middle class, which does not exist, and created the mental confusion of some sectors of the working class that they are in better economical conditions than the rest of the members of the working class, this is society divided in rich and poor, workers and capitalists, exploited and exploiters, and exploitation is related to the extraction of surplus value.The modern definition of Utopia is a society that does not exist at the present time, but it might exist in the future, it has nothing to do with the brotherhood between rich and poor, beauty,  or any type of pipe dreams, or social romanticism http://www.worldsocialism.org/spanish/utop%C3%AD-socialista-¿proyecto-realizable-o-sueño-inaccesible  

[Author]

Posts