Re: Revisiting old problems

[Adam Rose <adam@xxxxxxxx>]

>
> The Bolsheviks had no idea of exactly what would transpire after
> seizing power.

True.

But they did see it as the beginning of a world wide, certainly
European revolution.


> 1) What were the real possibilities for socialist development after the
> Bolsheviks took power? Much of what they did was based on exigency.
> Measures such as War Communism and the NEP seemed to have
> taken place, for better or for worse, on the basis of some kind of iron
> necessity. Were there other possibilities?
>

I don't know. It seems like a slightly abstract question.

But I would say that in a situation where the struggle is on an upward
curve, history is more forgiving of mistakes. A few degrees off course
is not a crucial error, it can be corrected later ( provided the mistake
is recognised ) . On the other hand, when it is on a downward curve, even
a slightly incorrect orientation can have very serious results.

So, the Bolsheviks at each turning point in the revolution where slow
to adapt, ( April Theses, ultra leftism in June, resistance to the
insurrection in October ) but did so eventually after much argument.
After it, hanging on to War Communism for a few months too long led to
Kronstadt.

> 2) What explains the tendency toward bourgeoisification in Cuban,
> Vietnamese and Chinese societies since the time of their victorious
> revolutions? Is the solution to be found in cultural revolution or are the
> antisocialist forces so great that no amount of heroic intervention by
> class-conscious revolutionaries can guarantee success?
>

State Capitalism is no longer a viable method of capital accumulation
in more globally integrated world economy. [ Well, you asked ].

> 3) What are the models for socialist development in an agrarian
> society? Marx and Lenin never spent much time exploring the
> revolutionary dynamics of rural society.

This is not exactly fair to Lenin. His early political development
consisted of a long argument against the Narodniks about the question
of whether socialism could develop out of the peasant communes - which
comes to us in the form of his book "The development of capitalism
in Russia". In this argument, he was proved quite right - socialism
did not come out of the peasant communes.

It also gave rise to the pre 1917 Bolshevik policy of supporting a class
war between the poor and rich peasants in the countryside, soviets
of poor peasants, and the like.

Of course, this was unceremoniously dumped during the revolution itself,
when such a class struggle failed to materialise - the struggle was between
the peasantry as a whole and the aristocrats.

[ And here is another example of the Bolsheviks having time to make good
their mistakes during the upswing of the revolutionary movement ].

> What are the lessons of the
> Chinese revolution that tapped the power of hundreds of millions of
> peasants but still did not seem capable of resolving the basis
> contradiction between town and countryside?
>

It's been said before on this list, but to look at 1940 without looking
at the disasters of 1927 + 1929, means that the existence of a genuinely
socialist path for China is discounted before you start.

Mao managed to combine a revolutionary war against the landlords with
a war against the invading Japanese. It was this that swept the CP to
victory from its relative isolation and defeat a few years previously.

But really, I think the lesson is that while the State Capitalist path
of development was viable, and very successful, for a period between,
say 1928 and 1970 ( ish ), it became unviable as production became
genuinely multinational towards the end of the long post war boom.

So both Russia and China before these periods of development were
international weaklings and after them were international superpowers.

For China, there very definitely was an alternative path that was a
real historical possibility. In 1927, under Stalin's orders, the CP
let Chiang Kai Shek into Shanghai, where they had effective control.
He then proceeded to methodically murder them.

The situation in Shanghai before they let him wasn't really what Marxists
would describe as dual power - it was workers power. Who knows what effect
a succesful workers revolution in 1927 would have had on subsequent events ?


>
> 4) Can any country build socialism on its own today?
>

No.

I mean this in two senses. First, to answer in my terms the question
I think you actually meant, that the State Capitalist path of development
is not an option now, because of the internationalisation of production.
Ultimately, I think it is this which explains the difference in the
politics of the Cubans and the Nicaraguans.

In the second sense, is it possible to build genuine socialism in one country
today, I think the changes in the economy mean that it is more urgent to
spread a revolution in one country to others. However, it is also true
that this neccessary task has become easier, for the same reason.

When Ford workers in the UK strike, within days, plants in Spain and Belgium
stop production. There will be no "British" cars produced under socialism
because there are no British cars produced under capitalism. If socialist
Britain wants cars, we'll need revolutions in "at least one or two other
European countries".

Politically, the struggle in South Africa was always an inspiration to
socialists in Britain. But when Thatcher fell, South Africans were
shouting "No Poll Tax" at the Apartheid regime.


>
> What are the
> alternatives for Cuba at this moment?
>

They can stay as they are, poor and hungry. Or they can open up to the
market and stay poor and hungry. If they take either path of capitalist
development, the future is very bleak.

The only alternative is . . . International Socialism.
Sorry for sloganising, but it's true. First, given the scarcity
in Cuba, it can be distributed more evenly ( and please don't
try to convince me that the leaders of the Cuban state are
walking around in hair shirts ). But also, the whole Imperialist
set up in the region needs to be taken on - and this needs the
combined efforts of the various working classes.

>
> 5) What does socialism mean for extremely peripheral nations like
> Burkina Faso, Grenada, Eritrea, etc.? Socialism is supposed to be
> about ending the private control of the means of production and
> establishing social ownership and planning. What were the means of
> production in a country like Grenada? The beachfront hotels?
>

Or The Gambia, where I've been on holiday. The main industries there are
tourism, groudnuts, and beer bottling.

I think the only real answer to this is that socialism can only come
>from the outside. It reminds me of the way socialism spread to the really
backward parts of the Russian Empire. As Bolshevism spread out from the
core industrial cities, the ideas were carried less and less by the working
class and more and more by the progressive intellengtsia, who were looking
for a solution to essentially national problems. Given the dead ends which
both free market and state capitalist development represent, this is not
an impossibility.

Countries like South Africa, Nigeria, Egypt, are the key to the situation
in Africa. Others ( Zimbambwe comes to my mind ) with significant
working classes may take the lead temporarily, like Russia did in Europe.

But of course, the traffic is not one way. Large scale revolts in these
countries can and do happen, and these can give inspiration to workers
in neighbouring states ( who are quite often from the same ethnic group
anyway ).

But really, there are very few countries today where there are so few
workers. The hotels in Gambia are more concentrated and bigger than
workplaces in Paris in 1871, I'd guess. There have been general strikes
in Nepal, and Lebanon.

> 6) What do we make of the Zapatistas in Mexico? This small band of
> poorly armed revolutonaries does not seem to have the concept of
> confronting the Mexican state apparatus directly. It uses a combination
> of militant direct action, international solidarity and propaganda to
> confront the Mexican ruling-class. Is this an intelligent strategy or
> simply a reflection that socialist revolution is not on the agenda in
> Mexico?
>

Why on earth might anyone argue that socialist revolution is not on the
agenda in Mexico? Central America is pretty fucked if it isn't.

> 7) What do we make of the assertions of Lenin that the USSR would
> perish unless revolutions took place in Western Europe and the infant
> socialist republic received powerful aid from those quarters? Is Stalin's
> industrialization of the USSR a refutation of Lenin's warning or does
> the collapse of the USSR following "perestroika" a confirmation of it?
>

Give Lenin a break. Noone had seen counter revolution by degeneration before,
only counter revolution by massacre. As a result, Trotsky saw the main danger
>from the "rightists" rather than Stalin, who he described as "centrist".

But the core of their argument, that an isolated revolution couldn't survive,
was clearly correct. They were understandably and inevitably wrong about the
nature of the counter revolution.


Adam.

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---