How did the Revisionists overthrow Socialism?

 :: General :: Theory

View previous topic View next topic Go down

How did the Revisionists overthrow Socialism?

Post by slavicsocialist on Sun Aug 24, 2014 4:01 am

Khrushchev overthrew socialism in USSR, Deng Xiaoping overthrew socialism in China, Ali overthrew Socialism in Albania.
How is it that these revisionists managed to come into power and restore capitalism?

_________________
avatar
slavicsocialist
___________________________
___________________________

Tendency : Marxist Leninism
Posts : 28
Reputation : 10
Join date : 2014-01-09

Back to top Go down

Re: How did the Revisionists overthrow Socialism?

Post by Balkan Beast on Sun Aug 24, 2014 6:30 am

Well personally I don't think any of those forms of socialism were done right but what it comes down to a lot is the people as a whole feeling as if they are being oppressed, which is exacerbated by foreign support, and eventually change occurs either peacefully or violently.

In terms of people just deciding to do reforms, overtime some people may have thought it'd be better for their country to integrate into capitalism to improve international relations, trade, etc.

We can only really speculate, have no idea what these people thought when they did what they done. Could've been their belief it'd be better for the country, maybe personal gain, or something in between.
avatar
Balkan Beast
_________________________
_________________________

Tendency : Non-Aligned
Posts : 108
Reputation : 40
Join date : 2011-12-20

Back to top Go down

Re: How did the Revisionists overthrow Socialism?

Post by Celtiberian on Sun Aug 24, 2014 10:33 am

I believe David Kotz provides the most persuasive explanation in Revolution From Above: The Demise of the Soviet System, i.e., that the problem was with centralized economic planning per se. Simply put, the nomenklatura of the state socialist regimes constituted something of a non-capitalist quasi-class whose position vis-à-vis the means of production was such that privatization was an attractive measure to undertake because they stood to personally benefit from it. The revolutionaries in Russia, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia and so forth could be entrusted to abstain from behaving in an analogous manner because they were principled communists. Once said revolutionaries passed away, however, various bureaucratic careerists, with no particular attachment to either Marxist theory or socialist political philosophy, inherited their positions of power and the inevitable result was capitalist restoration.

The obvious implication of this is, unless the means of production, distribution, and exchange are genuinely socially owned and democratically managed, a socialist mode of production cannot be sustained.

_________________
"The dogma of human equality is no part of Communism . . . the formula of Communism: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', would be nonsense, if abilities were equal."
—J. B. S. Haldane Hammer Sickle

"Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principle of freedom."
—Mikhail Bakunin Red Star
avatar
Celtiberian
________________________
________________________

Tendency : Revolutionary Syndicalist
Posts : 1523
Reputation : 1615
Join date : 2011-04-04
Age : 30
Location : Florida

http://www.wix.com/executivecommittee/home

Back to top Go down

Re: How did the Revisionists overthrow Socialism?

Post by Scarlet-Left on Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:02 am

Celtiberian wrote:
The obvious implication of this is, unless the means of production, distribution, and exchange are genuinely socially owned and democratically managed, a socialist mode of production cannot be sustained.

This is the contention of S.G. Hobson, made with enormous foresight, and I'm entirely convinced by it. He argues for the socialist state, however it manifests itself, to be accountable to democratic monopolies of labour (termed National Guilds).

Is this the same, or a similar, contention of syndicalism? I'm admitting my ignorance, but I've encountered syndicalists who fully accepted Guild Socialism (as just another term for their own system) but others who were totally against it (as just another term for fascism or social democracy).

Scarlet-Left
___________________________
___________________________

Tendency : Guild Socialism
Posts : 25
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2014-06-17
Location : East Midlands (GB)

Back to top Go down

Re: How did the Revisionists overthrow Socialism?

Post by Celtiberian on Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:13 am

Scarlet-Left wrote:This is the contention of S.G. Hobson, made with enormous foresight, and I'm entirely convinced by it. He argues for the socialist state, however it manifests itself, to be accountable to democratic monopolies of labour (termed National Guilds).

Is this the same, or a similar, contention of syndicalism? I'm admitting my ignorance, but I've encountered syndicalists who fully accepted Guild Socialism (as just another term for their own system) but others who were totally against it (as just another term for fascism or social democracy).

It depends entirely on which model of guild socialism you're referring to. G. D. H. Cole's conception is certainly analogous to what revolutionary syndicalists advocate(d)—i.e., a mode of production wherein productive and distributive assets are publicly owned and democratically managed by the working class—but the same cannot be said of, say, Arthur Penty's proposals.

Having said that, where syndicalists and guild socialists possess an irreconcilable difference of opinion is on the subject of tactics. Syndicalists are revolutionaries who believe socialism can only be achieved via direct action undertaken by the proletariat, while guild socialists (at least historically) are piecemeal reformists.

_________________
"The dogma of human equality is no part of Communism . . . the formula of Communism: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', would be nonsense, if abilities were equal."
—J. B. S. Haldane Hammer Sickle

"Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principle of freedom."
—Mikhail Bakunin Red Star
avatar
Celtiberian
________________________
________________________

Tendency : Revolutionary Syndicalist
Posts : 1523
Reputation : 1615
Join date : 2011-04-04
Age : 30
Location : Florida

http://www.wix.com/executivecommittee/home

Back to top Go down

Re: How did the Revisionists overthrow Socialism?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 :: General :: Theory

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum