When did applied socialism fail?

[klazlo]

Ok, here's another commy thread. Where did applied socialism fail (with the particular emphasis on the Soviet Union, which was the main agent)? Or in other words, what was the point in history when it could survive?
Was it originally a stupid idea? Did Lenin put it on a wrong track applying it to Russia? Was it Stalin with his terror? Or Brezhnyev and his overwhelming bureucracy? Perhaps Gorbachev put it in the grave, when opened the door? Or maybe it still out there, somewhere in Kuba, North Korea or China?

 

[Kafka2]

When it was applied.

 

[Hitro]

Never, it's still present in Europe. Not in a pure form of course.

 

[SKILORD]

Marx.

He was a genius, and his view of history bears a good hard look, but his predictions and his 'Communist Socialism' (for Marx hardly invented socialism) was an awful idea, as is, IMHO, all socialism. But communism is probably the worst idea of them all.

 

[Mojotronica]

I think that applied socialism has failed (for the time being) for two reasons:

a) Marx didn't have an inkling that the fossil fuel revolution enabled by petroleum would facilitate a shift f/ animal and manual labor to machine labor. The industrialized world was able to use this windfall to greatly increase production while reducing the need for manual labor. The subsequent prosperity gave industrialized nations the opportunity to release steam from the boiler of human misery before it exploded into Marx's revolution.

b) Although the final blow to capitalism comes as a massive REVOLUTION, what Marx described was mostly an EVOLUTION, from agrarian to industrial-decentralized to industrial-centralized to industrial-monopolized society... Marx predicted that BEFORE the revolution occurred, the nation or world had to be fully industrialized AND it had to be under the thumb of very, very few capitalist masters... He describes a very stratified society, lots of lots of poor, very few rich -- but fully industrialized.

Only under those conditions could the revolution be successful, because until that point all a revolution does is substitute one group of despotic exploiters of the people for another.

Only when so many people are oppressed under the thumbs of so few for so long that they are willing to REJECT capitalism entirely will the revolution be a success. Under those conditions, the Communist state would be a DEMOCRACY, because the people would voluntarily reject personal possessions. "Been there, done that," they would say.

It hasn't happened yet. Human nature must truly change for it to succeed.

Ironically, the bastion of Capitalism that is the United States is actually CLOSER to realizing Marx's vision than the Soviet Union ever was. We are fully industrialized. We are centralized. The end is in sight for the windfall of petroleum. Soon we may be monopolized and the gilding of our cages will lose it's lustre, and society will become stratified... Conditions will worsen. Talk of revolution will get broader, and louder... faint mumbling to rumbling to deafening roar of defiance...

Don't rule Marx out. It just may take more time than everyone expected.

Or maybe not. We'll see.

 

[klazlo]

Originally posted by Hitro
Never, it's still present in Europe. Not in a pure form of course.

Which country do you think?

 

[Dark Ascendant]

I blame it on Lenin, Russia was not the place to start the revolution that Marx intended.

 

[klazlo]

Originally posted by Mojotronica
I think that applied socialism has failed (for the time being) for two reasons:

a) Marx didn't have an inkling that the fossil fuel revolution enabled by petroleum would facilitate a shift f/ animal and manual labor to machine labor. The industrialized world was able to use this windfall to greatly increase production while reducing the need for manual labor. The subsequent prosperity gave industrialized nations the opportunity to release steam from the boiler of human misery before it exploded into Marx's revolution.

Good point that also highlights the historical context of Marx's original theory - which ironically was forgotten by those who applied his (and Engels') ideas.

b) Although the final blow to capitalism comes as a massive REVOLUTION, what Marx described was mostly an EVOLUTION, from agrarian to industrial-decentralized to industrial-centralized to industrial-monopolized society... Marx predicted that BEFORE the revolution occurred, the nation or world had to be fully industrialized AND it had to be under the thumb of very, very few capitalist masters... He describes a very stratified society, lots of lots of poor, very few rich -- but fully industrialized.

Another good point, Marxism basically saw history as an evolution or development of different societies. By these expectations England would have been the closest society to achieve socialism, and certainly not Russia. Evolution means that the best developed one steps onto a higher level. In the early Russian context - due to the nature of capitalism - the Russian capitalist class could not fulfill its role as they arrived late to the scene, so Lenin pushed for jumping over the capitalist stage, "speeding up" the original Marxist evolution.

 

[Kennelly]

It is completely stupid from the beginning.Marx makes premises which will never become true as humanity will never change THAT much.

 

[Richard III]

It depends on what you mean by "socialism."

I think Marxism failed at the first moment when someone died in the name of "the proletarian revolution."

R.III

 

[klazlo]

Originally posted by Richard III
It depends on what you mean by "socialism."

By socialism Marx meant the temporary social structure after the proletarian revolution (so I followed this line). Socialism is the transformation period, in which the main aspects of the new order are set up. Communism is the end product, which have certain characteristics (like the cease of the state).
It is improtant to understand - what the Western thinking was unable to do - that not any state in the East Bloc claimed to be communist, they were socialist and building communism. Since in its applied form the party leaders could not imagine the state and the vanguard party "wither away", if they state that "here is the communism, folks", they should have explained why the enforecment structure is still there. With this, socialism in practice became the permanent political structure.

 

[MrPresident]

I blame it on Lenin

I blame it on the boogie.

Was it originally a stupid idea?

Yes.

Did Lenin put it on a wrong track applying it to Russia?

Yes but I think Lenin understood the need for a capitalist stage before the socialist stage. So it is more the fault of Stalin than Lenin.

Perhaps Gorbachev put it in the grave, when opened the door?

The door needed opening before Gorbachev came along. He tried a last desperate gamble to save it but ultimately he failed.

Applied socialism failed as soon as Marx thought it up. It just isn't practical and also it's wrong.

 

[Vrylakas]

Socialism has a long-standing problem with application. Great sounding theories, but usually either people end up dying (The Paris Commune, or the Soviet "experiment"), or it just plain fails (Robert Owens and Charles Fourier).

If we take Hitro's point to heart then unionism, the labor movement and the development of the welfare state can be included as socialist victories, and I would agree they've all contributed to the prosperity of the average person in the Western world over the past century and a half. However, these movements tended to be very focused on specific issues and rarely were attached to larger socialist revolutionary movements and goals beyond lip service.

I think the 19th century struggles over industrialization and elites vs. the common man drove socialists to a militancy that didn't apply well in the modern world. Lenin's distorted and brutal version of Marx's theories were particularly Russian in their sadism but Karl Liebknecht in Germany was proposing some nasty things for revolution there too, and as well Béla Kun managed to have lots of peasants killed during his 133 days in power in 1919 Hungary. The communists who seized power in Bavaria in 1919 also had some fun brutal plans for their perceived class enemies. The socialists of the early 20th century were at war with the world, and were saturated with a militarism far worse than that of the elites they heaped scorn on. For as bad as the Okhrana and Tsarist police ever were, they never could equal the brutality and sheer body count of the VCheka.

Seizing power in Russia, then China and a few other states, socialism moved from a 'War Communism" footing to, after the Stalinist years, a bureaucratic communism that suffocated under its own dead weight. Eastern Europe, as mere satellite puppets, mirrored Moscow. This change reflected a change of the guard between the old militarized socialists and a new class of comfortable elites who just wanted the good times (for themselves) to last.

In this sense, socialism as applied in the 20th century was DOA in 1917, as it had no hope of building a stable and competitive economy, or country.

 

[Remorseless]

When I read the title, I thought to myself, well, socialism really hasn't failed. But then I saw we were talking about "applied socialism" i.e. communism. So I said at the beginning.

Marx's ideas were passe` when he wrote them.

But socialism, the idea that government exists in a free society in order to address the imbalances inherent in capitalism, is alive and well in almost every industrialized country on the planet, plus a whole lot of other countries.

Mojo, great post, my man. Interesting theory about the stratification of American society, although I disagree with it. History shows US societal pressures usually rupture well below the radical point, and government will be called into redress the wrongs. Look at 1933-35, 1964-66. But really well thought out.

 

[SKILORD]

I find time to disagree again Romorseless, hopefully we shan't see you throw a fit and leave this time:

Marx's ideas were not passe', they are still, in fact, valid. It was his predictions that were wrong.

Marx claimed that the History of Earth is the History of Evolution of government, that over the course of History freedoms would be regained until eventually the populace of earth saw freedom and rose up to take it from those who held it from them (The evil capitailist burgoise... people like me)

However he was wrong here because:

Marx saw nationalism as a fad, not an emerging trend that would consumme all of Europe. Property distribution was causing this, as the people now had a direct stake in the nation's wellbeing because that nation is theirs, their land is an investment in it.

Marx felt that the workers, once entering the cities, would be brought into a modern serfdom, he saw fuedalism in the countriside and could imagine no other way for workers to be organised. I shall continue this discussion later, I must go to work.

 

[Remorseless]

Skilord, I shan't pitch a fit, because we're not talking about denying freedom to people.

I think we're more in agreement than disagreement. What Marx failed to take into account was that capitalists, like all people, have a strong urge toward self-preservation. When the labor movements began, the capitalists initially reacted with force, but once they saw the tides moving against them, they then made accommodations with the workers.

Tell me the average factory worker in Germany, the US or France is oppressed. They are paid extremely well, are provided generous health care and retirement packages, insurance for on the job injuries, vacations, sick days, etc. What Marx failed to realize, and why I think his ideas were already old when he wrote them, is that governments (indeed all human systems) can adapt and alter themselves in order to survive. Look at the Communists in China. It's a Communist government, no doubt, but it's a CAPITALIST economy, or pretty darn close. It keeps the lid on social discontent by allowing people to improve their lot in life.

I don't think Marx was alone in this. Many people of the 19th Century failed to take into account the strong pull of traditional methods of doing things, and believed instead the modernism and industrialization would sweep away all the old ways. Well, my friend, that's crap. There are cities down here in Texas with German-names, full of people with German names, who spend a weekend or so a year having an Oktoberfest, drinking German beer and eating sausage. Then they pull on the cowboy boots, hop in their pickup truck, and holler out "see y'all next year!"

What I did like about Marx and Engels' message was how they pointed out the grotesque unfairness of the current economic modes. It was just that their proposed solution was unworkable and rather silly.

 

[SKILORD]

I agree.. but:

I don't think Marx was alone in this. Many people of the 19th Century failed to take into account the strong pull of traditional methods of doing things, and believed instead the modernism and industrialization would sweep away all the old ways. Well, my friend, that's crap. There are cities down here in Texas with German-names, full of people with German names, who spend a weekend or so a year having an Oktoberfest, drinking German beer and eating sausage. Then they pull on the cowboy boots, hop in their pickup truck, and holler out "see y'all next year!"

I do not understand this apart, my point was that the Industrial revolution forever changed this, it gave each worker far more power than before, both to produce, and to bargain. Thus it revolutionised worker's rights, rather than allowing a traditional solution (serfdom)

 

[onejayhawk]

Marx, like most people, had an insular view of human nature. He vastly underestimated the will to aquire and hold. By this I mean not just money or property, but position, status, legacy, comfort. In his world Man is basically altruistic, not basically aquisative. The whole house is built on a rotted foundation.

J

PS Does anyone know a good site on the true history of the Mayflower colony, ie the pilgrims?

 

[West German]

How can socialism be considered ddead as some countries are still communist??

 

[klazlo]

Originally posted by West German
How can socialism be considered ddead as some countries are still communist??

Well, I guess this is why I used the word 'fail', as it certainly failed, while definitely not dead.
But there is a huge difference between communism and socialism (except for the cnn folks of course), as I wrote a couple of posts earlier.