What is uneconomic under capitalism does not become economic under socialism.
Henry C.K. Liu
hliu at mindspring.com
Fri Dec 13 23:59:55 MST 2002
Kay McVey wrote:
> I agree with Henry on this. These two societies
> operate under different economic and political
> dictates. Although I dont agree with Henrys
> statement that:
> What the USSR should have done was to force the US to
> compete under socialists conditions and rules, as it
> did between 1946-1956, and measure success in terms of
> equality and justice. But revisionism took over the
> USSR and from that point on Soviet capitalism under
> socialist clothing did not have a chance.
Foreign policy is a matter of realpolitik and should not be confused
with ideology. Socialism cannot be established as long as capitalism
exists, at least not at an accelerated pace which is what revolution is
compared to evolution. Thus in both East Germany and Hungary,
suppression ot counter-revolution was necessary. Yes, there was a price
to pay. The mutual isolation of the two opposing ideological blocks gave
soicalism a fighting chance in the Soviet block, but co-existence anf
later Detent ensured the defeat of socialism in it cradle, but by then,
internal revisionism had already done its dirty work.
> Kay asks:
> Is this the same Soviet Union that quashed the
> uprisings in East Germany in 1953 and Hungary in 1956?
> Or the Soviet Union that denied its citizens the
> right to travel not only outside the country but also
> internally? Perhaps it the Soviet Union that sent
> people to the Gulag for daring to question government
> policy or the one that imprisoned the leader of the
> Red Orchestra, Leopold Trepper, because he knew of
> Stalins betrayal of clandestine agents in Germany and
> Europe but also had supposedly spent too long in the
> West and was infected with anti-socialist views?
Calvinism used the same methods to build capitalism, the only different
was that it succeeded and history was alway kind to victors. The reign
of terror in the USSR would have spent itself and socialism building
would have gone on in earnest if revisionism had failed to corrupt the
communist experiement, and the glory of socialism might have been
advanced by a century. Alas, the failure of the Soviet experiement had
pushed back socialism by a century, but it had not killed socialism,
only delayed its coming. The appeal of capitalism is now less
widespread without the support of the phobia of the distorted Soviet
version of socialism.
> It seems to me that it is a bit difficult to stand for
> equality and justice internationally when in your own
> socialist state the practice is distinctly unequal
> and unjust for the majority of the citizens. Equality
> and justice are the basis of a free society which the
> Soviet Union demonstrably was not.
Freedom to oppress is not freedom.
> To set up the Soviet Union as the prototype of
> emergent socialist society is to significantly limit
> the discussion.
Agree. Therefore, lets break out of this fixation about dirigisme being
anti-freedom and anti-democraacy. Lets reclaim the real meaning of
these terms in the socialism context.
Henry C.K. Liu
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism