|
Home | Join the Socialist Party | News | Subscribe | Donate | Bookshop Is world revolution a realistic prospect?14 September 2004 In a discussion with members of your sister party here in Germany someone said that the experience of the the Eastern block countries has taught us that socialism is only possible as a world system. Is a world revolution a realistic prospect? Didn`t Lenin expect the
same thing in 1917, only to be disappointed when the revolution here in
Germany failed? Wouldn´t we be back to a USSR-type model of socialism if
influential countries remained capitalist? Reply
Lenin and Trotsky did indeed understand that socialism was not possible to build in backward Russia, and made every effort to spread the ideas of socialism. They looked to Europe, and Germany in particular, as you explain, because socialism requires for its success socialism in a number of developed countries. Capitalism boycotted Russia, and it was starved and invaded. The "USSR model" reflected the isolation but also the inherited backwardness of the countries which made up the USSR. Today, many countries and communications are far more developed than Europe in 1917, (although sometimes side-by-side with tremendous poverty) and if the working class of a significant number of countries did carry out a socialist transformation of society, either in Europe, Asia, Latin America, the countries of the ex-Soviet Union, or elsewhere, then their influence on the working class of the rest of the world would be thousands of times greater than Lenin and Trotsky could achieve (which was not insignificant even then.) Nothing is guaranteed, except that capitalism will continue its genocide through the IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organisation, and its destruction of our environment, and its wars. The Socialist Party is part of the CWI with sections all over the world. What working class people are looking for is a party and leadership that is skilful in challenging capitalism, not blindly adventurous, but committed to the socialist transformation of society when entrusted to do so. I hope these thoughts begin to answer your questions. Michael Piper, East London Socialist Party Hi Michael! [We asked Michael to reply - ed] Hi Kevin, Some more thoughts to go towards answering your questions. I'm interested in what you say about people in Germany. When you say that revolutions start in people's heads, however, you are in danger of dismaying old Marx, since he fought very hard to establish that it is people's changing material circumstances that lead to changing consciousness. But I suspect you don't mean it that way, though. Big attacks, and big victories, wars, and so on, are events which change people's outlook. Capitalism is going on the attack very seriously in Germany, as the article shows in on the website this week. [See Germany: Anger, Bitterness And Increasing Opposition - ed] Notice in particular the reference to trade union plans to organise a Left party, and that 51% of Germans think Socialism is a good idea (despite a century of black propaganda by the bosses!) I don't know how many members the Socialist Party and its sister parties have. I know the CWI is organised in more than 35 countries, with new groups appearing all the time, and I understand that in many cases their influence is greater than their numbers. Reports appear from time to time on the socialist party website which indicate what the strength of socialist ideas is around the world. You will see this at the end of the article on Germany I mentioned. The main thing as I understand it, is that in most places at any rate, there are many people that understand already the iniquities of capitalism, (you indicate this also in Germany now) but as a mass they are unorganised, and they feel they have been let down by the parties they once trusted. Marx would agree with you however that socialism will not be won without a fight to win people's minds, a party to be built of the most energetic and committed people, a party which discusses amongst itself and with people on the doorstep everyday, trying to engage in what people see as the established political process, while at the same time lifting people's sights to a higher understanding. It must be a party which campaigns in the way you explain: "people get involved and work together to improve things for themselves" as part of the process of building a socialist future, which can only be achieved by the people themselves. This is our task. Best regards, Michael Hello Michael Hi Kevin, As you know, there were two revolutions in 1917 in Russia! You describe the first one, (the February revolution) very well. Let me tell you the story of the second, the October revolution. The February Revolution did not, as you say, go directly to socialism. But it would not be true to say nothing changed. Because the workers in the cities had set up "soviets", which were standing conferences of elected representatives of workers, peasants and soldiers (for the most part) which meant they represented the mass of the oppressed population whose suffering was increasing because of the first world war. However the elected leaders of these soviets after the February Revolution put their trust in parties that were not committed to a socialist transformation of society - at least, not for the foreseeable future. These parties, in turn, put their trust in capitalist parties. These parties, in their turn, put their trust in the aristocracy, (Prince Lvov, as I recall) who together with the capitalists ran the government and continued the 'war effort.' Standing against this trend, Lenin called for "All power to the Soviets". There was, he pointed out, dual power - the government on the one hand, and the soviets on the other. But only the soviets genuinely represented the people. People soon lost their illusions in the other political parties. Lenin's Bolshevic Party made massive gains at every election for the soviets, and there was an all Russia congress of soviets of workers, peasants and soldiers set for 17 October 1917. If you were a Russian military general, like Kornilov, it wasn't difficult to see that unless Petrograd was 'put down' (the way the the US tries to 'put down' Najaf or Falujah,) the Bolshevics would soon be elected into power in the Soviets, in alliance with the radical peasant party. Already the skies were alight, as Trotsky says, with the peasants burning the landlord's property, as the news of the February revolution spread, slowly, through Russia's vast interior. So Kornilov raised his army and marched on Petrograd, to drown it in blood. The government did nothing. Lenin's Bolshevic Party (now joined by Trotsky) organised the defence of Petrograd. They organised the building of barricades, requisitioned arms in the name of the soviet and drilled the people in fighting. But they won the peace by infiltrating Kornilov's army and skillfully explaining to his troops what was going on, who then mutinied en masse. The Bolshevics now had a commanding majority in the soviets in Petrograd - they were the only ones capable of defending the people. Soon they won a majority of the soldiers stationed in Petrograd, who then saw themselves as answerable only to their Military Revolutionary Committee, of which Trotsky was head, and power effectively passed into the hands of the Bolshevics. The All-Russian Congress of Soviets opened in October 1917, packed with delegates from every part of Russia. The Bolshevics had a majority, in alliance with the peasants party. They declared all power to the soviets, an end to the war, land to the peasants, nationalisation of the banks and big monopolies under workers control and management, and the full programme of the peasant party, just exactly as they had promised. The revolution was done. The removal of the vestiges of the old regime from the winter palace cost fewer lives than the famous movie made of it by Eisenstein. And no one was happier than the workers and poor peasants of Russia. They had overthrown, for the first time in history, the landlords and capitalists, and brought to an end the First World War. At least for a time they had their own destiny in their hands. Looking forward to hearing from you again. Michael Piper Hi Michael! (We passed Kevin's remarks back to Michael for comment) Hi Kevin I think your remarks reflect very much what many people think, and you do us all a service when you put them down in writing. These are questions that Marxists have been asked and have supplied answers to for generations. Yes, by 1921, the embargo and the attack on the new workers' state of Russia by 21 armies, including the UK, was tearing it apart. Kronstadt is a good example. By 1921, this famous, revolutionary naval base had been drained of every one of its original revolutionary sailors, who had gone, not just to fight, but to join squads and add revolutionary fervour to the fighting ranks all around Russia. They didn’t just fight – they understood, they motivated. But by 1921 there were none left. Kronstadt was drained of its revolutionary core, and what was left was the dregs of military society and raw recruits, and Kronstad naval base personnel used their military muscle on the surrounding town’s people in decidedly un-revolutionary ways. The base soon fell prey to plotters and counter-revolutionary people, and the subsequent uprising, perfectly well understood in the context of the civil war of the time, (where the battle between the red and white armies saw whole regions, let alone naval bases, changing sides,) became a cause celebre for anti-soviet anarchists when it was re-invented (initially by right-wingers) in the 1930s. But this, at base, reflects only the desperate situation of Russia at this stage. Between 1921 and 1923 real opportunities arose for a workers revolution in Germany, which were unfortunately lost. To understand the situation I would strongly urge you to go to our Russia pages, at http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/russia/index.html and in particular, if you have read the other stuff there, to study the Lessons of October to which there is a link at the bottom of the left side contents page, or go direct at http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/russia/lessons.htm To understand the way the Soviet Union degenerated into the dictatorship it became it is best to read Trotsky’s Revolution Betrayed, which can be found on the Marxist Internet Archive, at www.marxists.org there really is no short cut to finding out our answers to these questions than to read what we have written. Michael Can I add a point here? Just a comment on Kevin’s point about "Will it not be the case that once certain basics are guaranteed, certain individuals will always destroy socialism by wanting more than everyone else?" The only meaningful (scientific) interpretation of Socialism is the collective control over the means of producing wealth (and education, and health, and so on) by the producers of these goods and services, the working class, from the bottom up. It must be democratic and international, so that it can’t be bombed to bits, or isolated. The rules are that elected officials earn no more than the people they represent, are regularly elected and subject to immediate recall. They are subject to rotation, which means that they can't stay in the same job until it becomes theirs and no-one else can touch it, but there must be a collective approach to the tasks of administration so that "if everyone is a bureaucrat, no-one is a bureaucrat." The philosophy developed by the old political economist Adam Smith and his kind, that "people" are competitive and will competitively rise above others, ("Wanting more than everybody else") reflected the material conditions of rising capitalism, fighting against the feudal restrictions on the right to exploit. It was meant to apply not in point of fact to ordinary working class people, who Smith saw as a kind of mere slaves or cattle, (as opposed to what he calls the "public" who were the ordinary leisured classes of the day) but the rising capitalist class. This philosophy has subsequently been associated in common thought with the teaching of religion that "Man" was essentially "fallen" - a sinner, incapable of good to fellow man. "Evil" people keep rising up all the time. Look at all the hard work of George Bush! Those evil people keep just springing up which ever country you happen to invade and bomb to pulp. Smith insisted that he was merely delineating "natural laws" like Newton's law of gravity, which it was meaningless to resist. The whole of previous history had resisted it, but it took Marx to explain that it represented a specific stage in economic development, and predict the triumph of capitalism over the old feudal order the world around (Globalisation.) The result of this capitalist philosophy is the conception that a law against a firm or a person accumulating obscene wealth at other people's expense would be not only useless, but counter-productive - bad for business! (Oh, no bias there then!) So there is none. Thus the sentiment expressed by Kevin is a demonstration precisely of what John Maynard Keynes said, "Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist." (Keynes was trying to break this wash of unregulated sentiment from the classical capitalist economist propagandists - now called neo-liberalism in Europe and more often neo-conservatism in the USA - to get support for state intervention.) Marx of course studied Adam Smith thoroughly, showing the strengths and exposing the weaknesses of his and Ricardo’s analysis of the capitalist economy. (And everybody else's.) Marx also understood that material conditions cause capitalists to compete with one another, without any capitalist being born necessarily competitive. When the capitalist class was born it didn’t say "Competition is king" – quite the contrary – it posed as champion of the "Rights of Man" but it brought in slavery and child labour, opium wars and waves of mass starvation in India. All to further their profits, and thus get "more than everyone else" - in order to keep their stock high, and avoid being beaten by their competitors, and forced into bankruptcy - its win or lose. The material conditions of the working class force it into cooperative efforts, simply because it makes products through cooperative effort, (whether within a plant, or across plants and companies) and it gains nothing by the capitalists competition – if anything in fact it loses, despite what trade union leaders say. The results are trade unions, political parties, a force towards democracy (now claimed by the ruling class, but used as an excuse to steal Iraq’s Oil – "restoring democracy" by bombing and stealing the oil). That's why Marx and Engels concluded that the only meaningful interpretation of Socialism is the collective control over the means of production, as I explained at the beginning. which must be international. It must be based on a highly developed capitalist economy (e.g. globablisation) which has already integrated working people's efforts internationally (albeit cross-company in many cases, such as suppliers, etc) You must read Lenin's State and Revolution. I'm sorry I went on too long. Kevin have you read any of the books mentioned in Michael's comment above? Paul Cannon, East London Socialist Party Hello Michael and Paul Paul omits to mention that with the rise of capitalism the sentiment "certain individuals will always destroy socialism by wanting more than everyone else" as related by Kevin was adapted by the emerging religious expression of capitalism, (Protestantism roughly I guess) incorporating the notion that workers suffer and capitalists enrich themselves because "Man" is sinful. Thus people will still say, "Well people are selfish, so socialism cannot work." The new religions which were servants to the capitalists (so to speak) reasserted that "Man" cannot redeem himself, ruling out a priori legislating against the "sins" of man in the form of capitalism. Also people point to the debasement of our society by capitalism and imperialism, and see it as the actions of ordinary people "wanting more than everyone else", not of a ruling class hell bent on enriching itself in the competitive struggle of all against all under capitalism. So you get "We" invaded such and such country, and "We" are degrading the environment, when in fact ordinary people did oppose these things, but currently have no political representation. anon, USA Click here to send your Comments Home | Join the Socialist Party | News | Subscribe | Donate | Bookshop |