China prepares to invade Taiwan
CharlesB at SPAMCNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
Mon Jun 12 13:49:41 MDT 2000
>>> Debordagoria <phantasmagorias at yahoo.com> 06/10/00 12:30PM >>>
> >CB: It was obligatory for actual Marxists and
> > communists as opposed to idealist "Marxists" or
> > "communists" to defend the Soviet Union and the
> > socialist system in the name of socialism because
> > was socialist , not only in name , but fact.
> By what definition was the Soviet Union under Stalin
> (or after) "socialist"?
>CB: There was substantial abolition of private
> property in the basic means of production.
Surely this absolute equation of socialism = state
ownership has become a LITTLE discredited? No?
CB: You have jumped from "definiton of socialism" to "absolute equation of socialism
=state ownership ". I am not joining you in the jump. By a reasonable definition of
socialism , the Soviet Union was a substantial first step to socialism. It should be
understood by communists as a practice with the typical degree of trial and error of
any practice. Only a utopian approach would treat it as "not socialism".
The state ownership of property as substantially addressing the definiton of socialism
has not become a LITTLE (taking that sarcastically) discredited, no. The main first
expropriation of the expropriators will still be by a state dominated by the working
I substantially agree with Trotsky's discussion of the SU posted by Lou, as a more
nuanced and complex discussion of the issue than mine. All definitons are
preliminary and inadequate to a full analysis. Actuality willl not be as gray as any
abstract definition. But a short ( pithy for Mark) answer is as I gave.
More information about the Marxism