Ask A Red V: The Five-Year Plan

[Cheezy the Wiz]

totalitarians

A meaningless word.

 

[brennan]

I have an actual question for you:

What is your opinion on the Khrushchev period and the secret speech?

 

[Daw]

"For Marx" by Althusser explains it rather well. Marxism is anti-humanist. Humanism is a liberal ideology. Ergo, Marxism is anti-liberal.

Or in more concrete terms, liberalism posits the existence of metaphysical rights, existent throughout time, and an immutable human nature to go along with it. Materialists understand that both of these things are products of the society in which they exist.

After some looking through the Althusser's "For Marx", I understand it that the dispute is largely philosophical/terminological.

I guess that this:

The communism to which the Soviet Union is committed is a world without economic exploitation, without violence, without discrimination – a world opening up before the Soviets the infinite vistas of progress, of science, of culture, of bread and freedom, of free development – a world that can do without shadows or tragedies.

Spoiler broader context :

What about contemporary socialist humanism? It is also a rejection and a denunciation: a rejection of all human discrimination, be it racial, political, religious or whatever. It is a rejection of all economic exploitation or political slavery. It is a rejection of war. This rejection is not just a proud proclamation of victory, an exhortation and example addressed to outsiders, to all men oppressed by Imperialism, by its exploitation, its poverty, its slavery, its discriminations and its wars: it is also and primarily turned inwards: to the Soviet Union itself. In personal socialist humanism, the Soviet Union accepts on its own account the supersession of the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but it also rejects and condemns the ‘abuses’ of the latter, the aberrant and ‘criminal’ forms it took during the period of the ‘cult of personality’. Socialist humanism, in its internal use, deals with the historical reality of the supersession of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of the ‘abusive’ forms it took in the U.S.S.R. It deals with a ‘dual’ reality: not only a reality superseded by the rational necessity of the development of the forces of production of socialist relations of production (the dictatorship of the proletariat) – but also a reality which ought not to have had to be superseded, that new form of ‘non-rational existence of reason’, that part of historical ‘unreason’ and of the ‘inhuman’ that the past of the U.S.S.R. bears within it: terror, repression and dogmatism – precisely what has not yet been completely superseded, in its effects or its misdeeds.

But with this wish we move from the shade to the light, from the inhuman to the human. The communism to which the Soviet Union is committed is a world without economic exploitation, without violence, without discrimination – a world opening up before the Soviets the infinite vistas of progress, of science, of culture, of bread and freedom, of free development – a world that can do without shadows or tragedies. Why then all this stress so deliberately laid on man? What need do the Soviets have for an idea of man, that is, an idea of themselves, to help them live their history? It is difficult here to avoid relating together the necessity to prepare and realize an important historical mutation (the transition to communism, the end of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the withering-away of the State apparatus, presupposing the creation of new forms of political, economic and cultural organization, corresponding to this transition) on the one hand – and, on the other, the historical conditions in which this transition must be put into effect. Now it is obvious that these conditions too, bear the characteristic mark of the U.S.S.R.’s past and of its difficulties – not only the mark of the difficulties due to the period of the ‘cult of personality’, but also the mark of the more distant difficulties characteristic of the ‘construction of socialism in one country’, and in addition in a country economically and culturally ‘backward’ to start with. Among these ‘conditions’, first place must be given to the ‘theoretical’ conditions inherited from the past.

- would be after all described as quite humanist and pretty liberal by a vast majority of random people having no idea of terminological nuances, like myself.

Yet now I understand your point better and find it agreeable, I'd like (in my defense) to say that I have little theoretical background and use the words "humanism", "democracy", "liberalism" and such in their practical meaning, which Althusser finds allowable:

Marx’s philosophical anti-humanism does provide an understanding of the necessity of existing ideologies, including humanism. But at the same time, because it is a critical and revolutionary theory, it also provides an understanding of the tactics to be adopted towards them; whether they should be supported, transformed or combated. And Marxists know that there can be no tactics that do not depend on a strategy – and no strategy that does not depend on theory.

I understood it that while philosophically Marxism is anti-humanist simply because it deals with the same problems individually calling each with its own name and without combining them into vague agglomeration called humanism, Marxism still does not deny humanism, but rather adopts or transforms it to actually incorporate it:

Simply put, the recourse to ethics so deeply inscribed in every humanist ideology may play the part of an imaginary treatment of real problems. Once known, these problems are posed in precise terms; they are organizational problems of the forms of economic life, political life and individual life. To pose these problems correctly and to resolve them in reality, they must be called by their names, their scientific names. The slogan of humanism has no theoretical value, but it does have value as a practical index: we must get down to the concrete problems themselves, that is, to their knowledge, if we are to produce the historical transformation whose necessity was thought by Marx. We must be careful that in this process no word, justified by its practical function, usurps a theoretical function; but that in performing its practical function, it simultaneously disappears from the field of theory.

Same goes to liberalism, I assume.

Source of the quotes.[/SPOILER]

 

[Gary Childress]

"For Marx" by Althusser explains it rather well. Marxism is anti-humanist. Humanism is a liberal ideology. Ergo, Marxism is anti-liberal.

Or in more concrete terms, liberalism posits the existence of metaphysical rights, existent throughout time, and an immutable human nature to go along with it. Materialists understand that both of these things are products of the society in which they exist.

1. How important do you view the concept of 'liberty'? It seems to be a (or perhaps the) core value of liberalism and if Marx rejects liberalism then it sounds like he must be rejecting the idea that liberty is a supreme social good.

2. Also, if liberty is a core value of liberalism, and Marxism is anti-liberal, then what do you say would be a core value(s) of Marxism? What do Marxists view as being a political value(s) most worthy of upholding?

3. Last question (and this sort of plays in with question #2 above), can you explain what is meant by Marxism being "scientific"? I have always taken it to mean something to the effect that communism is seen by Marxists to be the logical end to human history. But there must be more to it than that because simply saying something is 'inevitable' does not necessarily mean it is 'desirable' and I can't imagine anyone saying to effect, "well it's inevitable that society will become communistic, therefore we ought to hasten the revolution", unless we also accept the premise that hastening the revolution is something desirable.

For example we might say that an asteroid striking the Earth could be 'inevitable' but that doesn't mean it's desirable nor something we should seek to hasten. So there must be more to Marxism than simply being a "scientific" prediction of the future. There must be some sort of value system at work, otherwise it seems largely devoid of any subjective value to human beings.

Thanks.

 

[brennan]

I can give a socialist answer to your questions:

Liberty is not the supreme social good. A healthy society necessarily balances freedoms with constraints - it has to do this to prevent one person's freedom from impinging upon that of another. The American insistence on their crazy gun culture is an obvious example of an expression of liberty that damages society. Criminal activities are necessarily constrained in all sensible societies. The challenge is to get the balance right.

I view the core value of socialism as the principle that cooperation between the elements within a society is at least as powerful a progressive element as competition. The post war consensus period demonstrates this quite well. An unparralelled period of peace, growth and prosperity amongst 'advanced' nations. Economic development within the two larger socialist countries - China and the USSR also demonstrate growth the Capitalist West has never managed. Unfettered capitalism on the other hand has an atrocious record for boosting inequality and frashing the global economy.

As I understand it Marx meant for his work to represent a rational analysis of evidence. Marxism is scientific in that sense and the fact that many economists still view his work as valuable gives strength to that notion.

 

[Gary Childress]

I can give a socialist answer to your questions:

Liberty is not the supreme social good. A healthy society necessarily balances freedoms with constraints - it has to do this to prevent one person's freedom from impinging upon that of another. The American insistence on their crazy gun culture is an obvious example of an expression of liberty that damages society. Criminal activities are necessarily constrained in all sensible societies. The challenge is to get the balance right.

I view the core value of socialism as the principle that cooperation between the elements within a society is at least as powerful a progressive element as competition. The post war consensus period demonstrates this quite well. An unparralelled period of peace, growth and prosperity amongst 'advanced' nations. Economic development within the two larger socialist countries - China and the USSR also demonstrate growth the Capitalist West has never managed. Unfettered capitalism on the other hand has an atrocious record for boosting inequality and frashing the global economy.

As I understand it Marx meant for his work to represent a rational analysis of evidence. Marxism is scientific in that sense and the fact that many economists still view his work as valuable gives strength to that notion.

This sounds like a very sensible answer. I suppose since you are not on the list of "approved" commentators I should defer until I hear from one of them, but a very sensible answer nonetheless.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I will try to get to some of your questions in the next couple of days. There's some heavy theoretical stuff I need to take time to answer.

I have an actual question for you:

What is your opinion on the Khrushchev period and the secret speech?

Khrushchev, along with many of the other Soviet leaders of that time (Kosygin, Mikoyan, etc), were definitely products of the Stalin era in a bad way. "The Khrushchev Era" can probably be said to begin with the Secret Speech, since this was to be the defining characteristic of his period of leadership (rule is an imprecise term, since the Soviets were explicit and active in their pursuit of collective leadership after the death of Stalin): rejection of the path laid out by the Stalin era. To be blunt, it's his fault that the Sino-Soviet Split happened (and by extension, that the GLF failed), and he began the revisionist trends that would cause the destruction of the USSR 30 years later. His economic reforms created the foundations of the Second Economy, whose bourgeoisie was immediately responsible for the overthrow of Soviet power in the 1989-1993 time period as well as a lot of unpleasantness for decades before then.

However, none of this came in a vacuum. These men were products of the kind of vetting and weeding-out process that became characteristic of upper-echelon leadership in the USSR in the 1940s, and that was a process essentially shaped by Stalin. So he bears some of the blame for creating this situation. I think Mao's late-game critiques of Stalin in the mid-1950s were strong, and displayed a slight trend of revisionism in his late politics - not enough to cause major problems, but enough to create the conditions for them, conditions that the post-Stalin leadership did a horrible job of closing up.

Much hubbub is made about the "terrible centralization of the USSR," but to be honest, a lot of that was a product of the necessities of industrialization, defeating the kulaks, and then winning the war. If there was a time to decentralize power, it was probably in the immediate postwar period, while the wartime alliance still lasted and all sides were reeling from the effects of the war. Stalin missed that chance and the structures became increasingly ossified - and if there's a word to describe Brezhnev's tenure, it's ossification.

With regards to the Secret Speech itself, there's still debate about how much of it was true or whether Khrushchev should have made it. While I think critiquing others is a good thing, this isn't what the speech was about: it was about denouncing the legacy of the Stalin era and separating himself from it. Even more than that, it was about driving a wedge between people like Molotov and Malenkov, who were more of that mindset, and others who were more like-minded with Khrushchev, the revisionists who needed to cut themselves free of that past and isolate the members of the party who clung to it.

Some of the Speech's accusations were nonsense. We know that Stalin had nothing to do with Kirov's murder, and a couple years later, Khrushchev himself was removed from office on the accusation that he had done many of the same things that he had denounced Stalin for doing, like "building a cult of personality" (another problematic and ambiguous term) and collecting powers from other people into his own person. Hoxha was right to denounce the Speech, especially in light of what K. and Co. used the speech to enable themselves to do: by painting Stalin and his cadres as the deviants, they were able to hold up the market socialism of Tito as a correct application of Marxism-Leninism, thence come the revisionist reforms that reintroduced capitalism into the USSR.

 

[Daw]

As to the inevitability, desirability and scientificity of Marx, my understanding of those (as a "non-approved" commentator, too, as my tint of redness may be questionable) is that Marx's contribution to socioeconomics is similar in its value and effect to that of Darwin's contribution to evolutionism.

In fact, a person in socioeconomics (or a species in evolutionism) can be expressed as a set of traits and features which result in needs, notions and aspirations, all seeking to be satisfied. That happens in an environment, which is more or less suitable for that. For any species, as soon as its characteristics (and through that need, notions and aspirations) are known, a perfectly fitting environment can be described, and as much as possible attempted to be built.

Socioeconomical environment is what people create for themselves to live in. Communism is just a socioeconomical environment that is simply most suitable to satisfying person's needs, notions and aspirations (except, perhaps, one - to dominate). For that it is inevitable eventually, and desirable currently. And scientific, of course, because it operates objectively existing (or theoretically achievable) materialistic parameters.

 

[brennan]

Thank you Cheezy:

How much do you think the second economy contributed to the economic woes of the USSR?

And can you recommend me a book or two that gives a good sober analysis of the economic and political history of the USSR?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

To answer this question from the East Asia ThreadI repeat my question: Does your support for anyone who wants to change the existing order extend to Wahhabism?

No. Wahhabism seeks to restore an arcane and outdated social order. It is not a progressive movement.

 

[Agent327]

Khrushchev, along with many of the other Soviet leaders of that time (Kosygin, Mikoyan, etc), were definitely products of the Stalin era in a bad way. "The Khrushchev Era" can probably be said to begin with the Secret Speech, since this was to be the defining characteristic of his period of leadership (rule is an imprecise term, since the Soviets were explicit and active in their pursuit of collective leadership after the death of Stalin): rejection of the path laid out by the Stalin era. To be blunt, it's his fault that the Sino-Soviet Split happened (and by extension, that the GLF failed), and he began the revisionist trends that would cause the destruction of the USSR 30 years later. His economic reforms created the foundations of the Second Economy, whose bourgeoisie was immediately responsible for the overthrow of Soviet power in the 1989-1993 time period as well as a lot of unpleasantness for decades before then.

One would expect some references here - from a historian, that is. In short, then, if only the USSR had stuck to Stalinism it could have gone on indefinitely, and all would have been well. That's an interesting viewpoint, considering that the USSR's economic problems dated from at least the 1930s.

Firstly, Krushchevs attempted (and later largely reversed) reforms were primarily agrarian in nature. It had nothing to do with the supposed creation of 'a bourgeoisie'.

Secondly, the 'second economy' is not about some non-existing bourgeoisie in the USSR, but simply what is generally known as black market. In addition to the small farmers (far more productive than the kolchozs, sovchozs and what had you) it formed a vital part of the Soviet economy. Of course this didn't agree with Socialist economic theory, so it was largely ignored - in theory. A second economy was already in existence long before Krushchev supposedly 'created' it.

However, it is interesting that you do mention a 'bourgeoisie' - although most experts would call them apparachiks - the elite that de facto ruled the USSR. It was in fact these apparachiks that took advantage of the breakup of the USSR to secure their own regional households, as well as give rise to the plutocrats that bought up former state enterprises cheap and grew very rich on them. It is also remarkable that from a society that supposedly had no crime the Russian mafia exploded onto the global scene the very moment the USSR broke apart. So, it would appear that, Krushchev or no Krushchev, the USSR was not all well. Something which was not unknown to economic experts - both inside and outside the USSR. It is surprising, however, that a selfproclaimed historian is completely unaware of such a rather basic fact.

Ending note: the kulaks were never 'defeated': the very existence of the kulaks was a result of an official Soviet policy (NEP), which was later reversed. This, of course, did not remove the kulaks. Hence the official propaganda against said kulaks, because they didn't agree anymore with the new kolchozization of Soviet agriculture policy. The kulaks were in fact part of the productive sector of Soviet agrarian economy - still a weak link of the Russian economy today. But it was typical of the USSR that a change in official policy immediately resulted in typifying suddenly gone out of grace people as 'enemies of the state', 'profiteers' and such. Apparently the entire Gulag (which included millions of citizens at any one point in time) was filled with such theoretically non-existent people.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I don't argue with people who don't participate in good faith arguments. At any rate this is not a discussion thread it is a question and answer thread. Your concern-trolling is noted - and ignored.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

As Lukacs said, to paraprase, even if all of his specific data were incorrect, which it wasn't, the methodology of Marx remains correct. Lenin added the apparatus, and, voila, 1/4 of the world's population lives under a developing DOP.

One dot does not make a trend.

Thoughts, fellow Reds?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm reading Badiou's Being and Event, and he makes much the same point, albeit in much more academic language: "A truth concerns everyone inasmuch as it is a multiplicity that no particular predicate can circumscribe." Which basically means that a truth is realizable in multiple ways: a given iteration isn't required to be the only possible or only correct iteration. There are many ways a triangle can be manifested, just because you have a specific triangle and not another doesn't mean that the definition of a triangle is exhausted by it.

Just the same, the fact that Actually Existing Socialism "failed" does not mean that all possible iterations of socialism have also failed.

 

[Daw]

a given iteration isn't required to be the only possible or only correct iteration.

I think it's a very true thing

Since socialism/communism as a socioeconomical concept is scientific, it actually should not ossify in any particular rigid form with any great thinker of it cast in bronze and any particular saying about it chiseled in stone. Concept has to be modified to fit the conditions it is applied to, and then modified further to still fit the conditions it works in as they change.

When a concept becomes dogmatic, it stops being scientific.

Just the same, the fact that Actually Existing Socialism "failed" does not mean that all possible iterations of socialism have also failed.

As to actually existing socialism, regardless whether it is described as "failed" by some or it is described as "thriving" by others, it is still improvable, and it can be a good idea to think about what, where, when and how can be improved.

Improving things is always better than demolishing things or building them anew from scratch, I think. And it's even more so when it comes to complex things like a country's socioeconomical structure with millions of people well-being and mere lives of some of them at stake. A disaster is survivable, but it's better to be avoided if possible.

 

[Flying Pig]

Just the same, the fact that Actually Existing Socialism "failed" does not mean that all possible iterations of socialism have also failed.

Can the same not be said of liberal democracy?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Can the same not be said of liberal democracy?

Marxist rhetoric against liberal democracy has nothing to do with its "failure" so much as its inability to address certain concerns in certain ways due to the material interests of those who control power.

A circle can never have corners, and a triangle can never have more or less than 180 degrees in its angles.

This response of yours would be more properly directed against those who say that a country like Iran, which is a parliamentary democracy, is not democratic because it doesn't follow a specifically Western conception of what liberal democracy should look like.

 

[Flying Pig]

Do any of those concerns remain if you don't subscribe to the labour theory of value?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It takes on a more explicitly moral tone, but yes.

I mean, even with Marxism, and the LTV, and all that science, it's possible to look at capitalism's system for empowering the ruling class, siphoning the wealth that workers produce away to the business owners, and maintaining an undemocratic rule over the economy [and without liberal pretensions there would certainly be an undemocratic society too], and think "you know, this is just." The leap from "this is how it is" to "this is wrong" is not a huge one, but it is still a leap.

Fortunately, the people getting utterly wrecked by the logic of capitalism are many, and those benefiting from it are few.

 

[aelf]

Do any of those concerns remain if you don't subscribe to the labour theory of value?

Yes, I'm ambivalent towards the labour theory of value, but there are other good objections to the capitalist mode of production that leads one to adopt a Marxist approach.