Ask A Red V: The Five-Year Plan

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Can you expound on this a bit?

The workers are in control of a state that remains bourgeois, because the core social forces that sustain bourgeois rule remain unmolested: private property, capitalist-based modes of production and exchange (well one could make a case for them being on the ropes tbh). This contradiction is possible because no violence has been applied to destroy the capitalist apparatus that remains, and to construct a socialist one in its place. There are two reasons for this situation to arise: 1, the party in question does not wish to confront Capital but rather to compromise with it, or 2, the party in question is incapable of defeating Capital in an all-out confrontation. I believe the latter case is the situation in Venezuela, and that this is most likely due to the looming presence of American imperialism and its puppet state to the west (Colombia).

Outside of the state a dual-power has been constructed in the neighborhoods and villages, organizing forms of direct democracy in the government of the community, and also the extension of national democracy downward into the poorest sections of society. Non-capitalist forms of distribution have been formed to distribute goods in these districts, and significant government investment in the regulation, betterment, and investment in these districts has been a major policy of the Bolivarian regime, and facilitated a spread of wealth downward and back into the hands of the poor, who created it in the first place.

Inside of the bourgeois system, the Bolivarian regime has gone about as far forward as it can without provoking a head-on confrontation with Venezuelan Capital and its international backers, one that will only be resolved through violence, and the winner of which will be enabled to either construct or reconstruct all of society as they wish. That's dangerous and often provokes foreign intervention by imperialist powers. How patient the Venezuelan proletariat will be on this issue remains to be seen, but I personally believe that the anxiety of Venezuelan Capital will lead them to fire the first shot. In some respects they may have already, with their continued attempts to undermine the credibility of the Venezuelan government by sabotaging production and hoarding goods to drive up prices and create artificial shortages. Some business leaders have been jailed over it once proof was furnished.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

The workers are in control of a state that remains bourgeois, because the core social forces that sustain bourgeois rule remain unmolested: private property, capitalist-based modes of production and exchange (well one could make a case for them being on the ropes tbh). This contradiction is possible because no violence has been applied to destroy the capitalist apparatus that remains, and to construct a socialist one in its place. There are two reasons for this situation to arise: 1, the party in question does not wish to confront Capital but rather to compromise with it, or 2, the party in question is incapable of defeating Capital in an all-out confrontation. I believe the latter case is the situation in Venezuela, and that this is most likely due to the looming presence of American imperialism and its puppet state to the west (Colombia). .

Thank you, Cheezy.

I would like to say a few things:
The Constitution was totally rewritten and the state apparatus was retooled to resolve class contradictions in favor of the working class. This is not socialism, I grant, but it makes more fertile the ground in which to sow and grow socialism. While this was not "violent," the bourgeoisie reaction was violent (two attempted coups that failed, plus periodic unrest sown by the wealtht elite) and continues to be, in spite of the outward fairness of the electoral process, the reactionary bourgeoisie of Venezuela cannot get a legal electoral foothold anymore.

The new government is taking a two-pronged approach: continue to derive its power from a mandate from the people via the de jure electoral process which has been squeezing out the bourgeois representatives in the parliament; and continue to turn the machinery of production over to the workers.

Outside of the state a dual-power has been constructed in the neighborhoods and villages, organizing forms of direct democracy in the government of the community, and also the extension of national democracy downward into the poorest sections of society. Non-capitalist forms of distribution have been formed to distribute goods in these districts, and significant government investment in the regulation, betterment, and investment in these districts has been a major policy of the Bolivarian regime, and facilitated a spread of wealth downward and back into the hands of the poor, who created it in the first place. .

Yes. And this is how revolutionary proletarian leadership develops.

Inside of the bourgeois system, the Bolivarian regime has gone about as far forward as it can without provoking a head-on confrontation with Venezuelan Capital and its international backers, one that will only be resolved through violence, and the winner of which will be enabled to either construct or reconstruct all of society as they wish. That's dangerous and often provokes foreign intervention by imperialist powers. How patient the Venezuelan proletariat will be on this issue remains to be seen, but I personally believe that the anxiety of Venezuelan Capital will lead them to fire the first shot. In some respects they may have already, with their continued attempts to undermine the credibility of the Venezuelan government by sabotaging production and hoarding goods to drive up prices and create artificial shortages. Some business leaders have been jailed over it once proof was furnished.

This is true, but the progressive forces in Venezuela are also still divided, so it is both an unwillingness on the part of center-left groupings to piss off the US; and an inability to on the part of more left groupings who still see the material economic grasp the reactionaries still have.

 

[Agent327]

Not just pics; vids..

Proof of the superiority of socialist musical education.


Link to video.

Yes we know him, he's donating a concert tonight.

Better Red than Dead.

Oh, that answers it so much better. I forgot even what the question was...

 

[_random_]

Thanks, y'all. There's a quote I've heard attributed to Marx, something like "Philosophy is to reality as masturbation is to sex." Do you know if that's genuine? And if so, where does it come from?

Also, have you read any Marxist opinions of the People's Party? I know some Sewer Socialists were members, but it never generated huge support among urban labor. It still strikes me as a more genuinely proletarian party than either alternative, although there are a few factors that I imagine complicate that.

 

[aelf]

I've only ever seen this quote:

Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.

-Marx, 11th Thesis on Feuerbach

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Do you mean the Populists? They were an interesting development because they were among the first organizations to organize both Black and White workers and to unite farm and factory workers, but they had a deep workerist deviation that led them to social democracy and reformism instead of socialism. They should be seen as a reaction to the Long Depression-era doubling-down by liberals that ended Reconstruction.

The Populist Party Platform from 1892 (?) should be read by all students of American history and labor movements.

 

[Tahuti]

Any reds who consider themsel their support of Communism to constitute belonging a separate Communist ethnicity?

Communism seems to be more than just an ideology and more a unique lifestyle distinct from established ethnic groups based on ancestral kinship and religion.

Some other things that make me ask this question is that Communist promote international workers solidarity as opposed to civic and ethnic nationalism. Basically, Communists consider the world to be their homeland and view territorial and ethnic nationalists to be oppressors against whom they seek liberation. There is also a distinct Communist culture: There are Communist songs, paintings and more.

 

[Daw]

Don't know if I am a true red, formally not, but I do feel more of that color than any other. So as a sympathizer, my answer shall not be taken as an official red position, it's just mine, though I'll be pleasantly surprised if it happens to match the reds' thoughts here, which I am very interested to learn, too.

I don't like the word 'ethnicity' in this context. Communist ideas walk together with Internationalist ones. So as long as mankind is not an ethnicity, Communism is not one as well.

On the other hand, Communists do seem to consider the world to be their homeland since, firstly, it is mankind's homeland and ComIntern associates itself with mankind as a whole, and, secondly, there are no other worlds, are there?

The next thing is that ethnic nationalists are not necessarily seen as oppressors. Communist culture in form of songs, paintings and whatever is not supposed to replace national culture, but to add to it, and better yet to be incorporated into it thus further enriching it. I see it as a process similar to how Christian culture, for instance, was incorporated into ethnic cultures of a vast variety of nations without them loosing their identity. That is, of course, in parts where Communist ideas and national ones do not contradict. Where they do... well, Christians sometimes baptized nations by sword and fire, Communists also have blood on their hands. Hopefully, these mistakes will not be repeated again in future by modern and future distributors of any idea, be it of religious, social, economical or any other nature.

 

[_random_]

Do you mean the Populists? They were an interesting development because they were among the first organizations to organize both Black and White workers and to unite farm and factory workers, but they had a deep workerist deviation that led them to social democracy and reformism instead of socialism. They should be seen as a reaction to the Long Depression-era doubling-down by liberals that ended Reconstruction.

The Populist Party Platform from 1892 (?) should be read by all students of American history and labor movements.

Thanks! I was indeed referring to the People's Party. Could you recommend any secondary reading on them, or of turn-of-the-century labor/political history in general?

 

[Ajidica]

Question to Cheezy:
In the recent discussion we had about Clement Attlee and your previous comments on Jeremy Corbyn; I've noticed you at best think they are misguided for trying to work inside the system to make things better rather than bringing down the whole rotten mess.
Since a communist revolution doesn't seem particularly close at hand, I'm trying to wrap my head around why you feel socialists and communists shouldn't work with the system to make things better.
Going back to the Attlee example, I can see why you have disagreements over his direction of Labour; but coming right out with some rather intense dislike for the man treating him as if here were no better than Churchill or Kitchener seems a bit harsh and myopic. Especially given the context of showing that not all socialists have an "urge to purge" so to speak. (I then found your praise for Stalin odd but whatever.)

 

[Hygro]

Is this a true story or some fabricated story to discredit J.Stalin?

Being a very private man [Stalin] gave the order that no person should enter his bed chambers on pain of death. Later, while in his chambers he decided to test whether his guards had listened to this instruction. Pretending to scream in pain he called for the guards stationed outside the door. Fearing that their leader was in trouble the guards burst into the room. Stalin had them executed for failing to follow his standing orders.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Thanks! I was indeed referring to the People's Party. Could you recommend any secondary reading on them, or of turn-of-the-century labor/political history in general?

I can't think of anything special to recommend. I seem to remember Zinn's chapter on the period giving it decent coverage.

Question to Cheezy:
In the recent discussion we had about Clement Attlee and your previous comments on Jeremy Corbyn; I've noticed you at best think they are misguided for trying to work inside the system to make things better rather than bringing down the whole rotten mess.
Since a communist revolution doesn't seem particularly close at hand, I'm trying to wrap my head around why you feel socialists and communists shouldn't work with the system to make things better.

Because reform is not our goal, it's impossible for us to lead movements whose goal is reform. We should never tail either liberals or the masses, we should be constantly directing them toward more radical ends, and in turn following the masses when they lead in a radical direction [in which case the leadership of the movement emerges from the masses to form a vanguard, and is not something preformed and then placed into the tip of the spear]. Thus, if we expend active support for reformism, we are supporting liberalism and will inevitably find ourselves either opposing radicalism by the masses or misleading them toward reformist ends that will not answer their problems. That means they lose faith in us for leading them astray.

That doesn't mean that we oppose reforms, only that we oppose reformism. In some cases reforms can serve as important victories that create conditions for further organization. People need to see results, after all. But those reforms must always be directed toward something greater.

Going back to the Attlee example, I can see why you have disagreements over his direction of Labour; but coming right out with some rather intense dislike for the man treating him as if here were no better than Churchill or Kitchener seems a bit harsh and myopic. Especially given the context of showing that not all socialists have an "urge to purge" so to speak. (I then found your praise for Stalin odd but whatever.)

He's not any better, IMO. He's responsible for the solidification of British imperialism as it faced a profound crisis after the Second World War. Part of that solidification is the establishment of a sound basis of support at home in the form of a welfare state. He literally bribed the British working class not to tear down the empire from the inside as he was trying to stabilize it in the periphery.

If Attlee were actually a useful socialist, he would not have helped organize a league of capitalist self-defense against the extant socialist states, nor supported an anti-communist government against communist rebels, nor have violently repressed independence movements in colonies across the Empire. He would have torn the Empire apart once in power, actually moved to destroy British Capital at home, and at the very least have remained neutral in the growing conflict between the Eastern Bloc and the other capitalist countries, and at best have actively worked to undermine unity in the capitalist world while cooperating cordially with the USSR in the reconstruction of Central and Eastern European People's Republics using gifts of now-confiscated British finance capital (remember that most of the Eastern Bloc were either multiparty republics or occupied defeated Axis powers during Attlee's time in office).

Is this a true story or some fabricated story to discredit J.Stalin?

When in doubt, I disregard stories like this about Stalin, because they are quite comically unrealistic [this includes stories about him sleeping with Il Principe under his pillow and things like that too]. Stalin was not an aribrarily-murdering bloodthirsty man, nor did he have the power to condemn people to death at a whim or even to have them arrested. There *was* a rule of law in the USSR, he was not an autocrat.

 

[Hygro]

When in doubt, I disregard stories like this about Stalin, because they are quite comically unrealistic [this includes stories about him sleeping with Il Principe under his pillow and things like that too]. Stalin was not an aribrarily-murdering bloodthirsty man, nor did he have the power to condemn people to death at a whim or even to have them arrested. There *was* a rule of law in the USSR, he was not an autocrat.

This seems much more plausible. It is documented that leaders like Wallenstein would execute people that quickly, so it's not without European precedent. But 1600s Germany is not 1900s USSR.

 

[red_elk]

It's also worth mentioning that two probably most often mentioned Stalin's quotes, are misattributed.
"The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."
"Death solves all problems — no man, no problem"

Both sayings are regularly and mistakenly being attributed to Stalin.

 

[Daw]

Spoiler :

"The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."

"... extinction of entire species is macrobiology." Saw that in somebody's signature here on this forum, liked it much because it's true.

nvm

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

"The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."

This line comes from The Black Obelisk by Eric Maria Remarque.

not all socialists have an "urge to purge" so to speak. (I then found your praise for Stalin odd but whatever.)

Stalin didn't have "an urge to purge," if anyone did it was the NKVD. Stalin was quite resistant to the idea of a mass operation against counter-revolutionaries for months in 1937. In fact, he urged the following in response:

“They say that this is dangerous, that enemy elements such as white guards, kulaks, priests and so forth can sneak into the higher organs of Soviet power. But what are they actually afraid of? ‘If they are afraid of wolves, don’t go into the forest.’ In the first place, not all former kulaks, white guards, or priests are dangerous to Soviet power. In the second place, if the people do elect dangerous elements, then it would be a sign that our agitation work went badly and we would fully deserve the disgrace.”

Stalin was convinced that the regional governors and the NKVD were both purposefully exaggerating the threat posed by these "enemy elements" that had come out of hiding for the 1937 election campaign in order to shut the elections down (the regional governors) and get their powers back that had been slowly eroded through the 1930s (the NKVD). Only after prolonged dispute and considerable evidence was produced did Stalin "get the urge to purge" and give the NKVD their powers back and the task of hunting down these rogue elements. But even after that Stalin was hardly the person directing the Purges or the mass operations, and other politicians were just as opportunist as he in using the chaotic paranoia to get rid of rivals. And then, of course, the man who presided over the NKVD during the worst period, and gave it his name [Yezhovshchina], was himself implicated, and things calmed down after that.

So let's think twice before repeating trite anti-communist tropes.

This seems much more plausible. It is documented that leaders like Wallenstein would execute people that quickly, so it's not without European precedent. But 1600s Germany is not 1900s USSR.

No it is not.

 

[red_elk]

"The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."

This line comes from The Black Obelisk by Eric Maria Remarque.

Yes, and "Death solves all problems — no man, no problem" is from Anatoly Rybakov's "Children of Arbat".

 

[Mouthwash]

Hello, I have posed a question to Marxists over in World History. I didn't want to post it here because it's a bit passive-aggressive, and probably deserves its own discussion thread anyway.

 

[Agent327]

Stalin didn't have "an urge to purge," if anyone did it was the NKVD. Stalin was quite resistant to the idea of a mass operation against counter-revolutionaries for months in 1937.

Interesting viewpoint. Especially considering the NKVD wasn't spared from purging either. I'm also not sure why Stalin would have had 'hesitations' in 1937 when he had none before - when there actually were counterrevolutionaries. In the 1930s it was more a case of witch hunting - the 'witches' mostly being the Communists themselves.

I appreciate you giving answers, but they should at least be in accordance with historical fact. There are several excellent Stalin biographies available.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Interesting viewpoint. Especially considering the NKVD wasn't spared from purging either.

That fact doesn't disprove what I said.

I'm also not sure why Stalin would have had 'hesitations' in 1937 when he had none before - when there actually were counterrevolutionaries. In the 1930s it was more a case of witch hunting - the 'witches' mostly being the Communists themselves.

I literally explained why he has hesitations. Try to read what you're responding to.

I appreciate you giving answers, but they should at least be in accordance with historical fact. There are several excellent Stalin biographies available.

There's an expression we communists use: No Investigation, No Right to Speak. It means that if you don't know what you're talking about then you shut up and listen those who do.

If you want to read about what I just described in-depth, then keep up with the Soviet historiography and pick up J. Arch Getty's Practicing Stalinism that was published last year.