sov0k: (Marine)
Victor Shapinov
THE REVOLUTION BETRAYED: FROM OPPORTUNISM TO TREASON


In March 1985, the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU elected Mikhail Gorbachov as its Secretary General. Hardly any of the left today will say a kind word about the persona of the last Secretary General. And fans of Gorbachov's political line have become quite an exotic curiosity. Everyone understands that Gorbachov betrayed socialism – the cause he verbally supported.

It is important to remember, however, that the collapse of the Soviet Union was not a matter of one day, or even of several years. The mechanics of counterrevolution were operational for many years before giving irreversible results. No less important it is to realize that no separate individuals, nor even figures such as Mikhail Gorbachov, were to destroy the first socialist state.

It's not about the personal qualities of Gorbachov, and not about the act of his betrayal. Here the words of Friedrich Engels are worth recalling: "when you inquire into the causes of the counter-revolutionary successes, there you are met on every hand with the ready reply that it was Mr. This or Citizen That who "betrayed" the people. Which reply may be very true or not, according to circumstances, but under no circumstances does it explain anything – not even show how it came to pass that the "people" allowed themselves to be thus betrayed. And what a poor chance stands a political party whose entire stock-in-trade consists in a knowledge of the solitary fact that Citizen So-and-so is not to be trusted."[1]



Gorbachov's betrayal of socialism is clear to everybody today. This is such a commonplace that one doesn't want to repeat it again. It will be more interesting to show that those ideological and theoretical preconceptions, which Gorbachov’s leadership was guided by while completing the liquidation of socialism in the USSR, persist in the post-Soviet left movement, that largely "has forgot nothing and has learned nothing", like the Bourbons.
Read more... )




Original article in Russian: http://liva.com.ua/twenty-years.html
sov0k: (Marine)
Original: http://shapinbaum.livejournal.com/136365.html

* People who preach hard the word "socialism" are most likely actual socialists. That is, the people for whom an equal dispensation of porridge from the pot is way more important than technological and social progress.

* These are, first of all, non-Marxist socialists – anarchists, "democratic socialists", and the rest of them folkisch. But they have as a rule too straightforward misgivings about the USSR and communists to morally screw us up with hours-long rants on the topic of "why there was no socialism in the USSR".

* Secondly, these are the people whose ideological store remained at the level of the Second International. They have learned some Marx, diluted by Lassalle and distorted by Kautsky (and later retold by someone else unknown), but have decisively failed at Lenin, usually not on this question alone.

* Of the latter, the majority is comprised these days of all sorts of Cliffites and Trotskyites, erm… – the ones calling themselves Trotskyists, anyway. That is, about Trotsky personally, and about a bunch of his associates certainly it can not be said that they had remained on the pre-revolutionary level. They were on the level with their opponents in the VKP(b). But by the logic of factional struggle Trotskyist organizations in the West were massively stuffed with the splinters of the Second and the 2 ½ Internationals. Trotsky was their banner and point of crystallization, but these types were reluctant to get into the details of his doctrine and satisfied themselves with the previously acquired Menshevik education. Later on, after the WWII all the sane people escaped from there while the rest stewed in their own juice for a long time.

* Any discussion "about the nature of the USSR" with the participation of these people – and there are no other discussions of this topic – is trivial and of little interest for the communists and very quickly turns into a kind of Catholic canonization process. Highly initiated theologians waving kilometer-long sheets of quotations from the Fathers of the Church thoughtfully discuss whether or not the subject the dispute - the USSR, that is - is worthy of the High Title of Socialismтм, or there are some Dark Spots on its biography that prevent canonization.

* This approach is logical for the people who use – consciously or subconsciously – the outdated definitions of socialism. Really, suppose socialism for us is synonymous with social justice and the ideal society, well, or at least with the ultimate goal of the movement. Then, first of all, it is indeed a high title, which has to be earned. And secondly, any injustice, any imperfection of the social system excludes a society from the pool of contenders for the title of socialist just by definition.

* Contributing to the confusion is the absence of a culture of thinking, which is very common among people with education in humanities, or without any systematic education. In order to consistently and systematically adhere under any circumstances to a once accepted definition, a fair amount of discipline of mind is needed, which is achieved by systematic training. Way more commonplace is the situation when a person verbally agrees with a definition, yet bases his reasoning not on it but on his intuitive notions about the subject. In this case, we see that the intuitive notions are formed by the literature, in which the word "socialism" was used in a completely different sense than that of today.
Read more... )

Profile

sov0k: (Default)
Sov0k

June 2017

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021 222324
252627 28 2930 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 25th, 2017 20:35
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios