From: Jurriaan Bendien (adsl675281@TISCALI.NL)
Date: Wed May 10 2006 - 08:29:22 EDT
Hi Jerry, Not much time because I'm still unpacking stuff, but just briefly: You asked: Well, was that imperialism? The Czarist empire was an empire, and originally (under Lenin's leadership) the USSR was conceived as a FEDERATION of cooperating but politically autonomous socialist republics. Under Stalin, the federation became a centralised "Union". Stalin explained the reasons for this change as follows: "Assistance to peasant farming, the raising of industry, improving means of transport and communication, financial questions, questions concerning concessions and other economic agreements, joint action in foreign markets as buyers or sellers of commodities -- such are the questions that gave rise to the movement for the formation of a Union of Republics. The exhaustion of the internal economic resources of our republics as a result of the Civil War, on the one hand, and the absence of any considerable influx of foreign capital, on the other, have created a situation in which none of our Soviet republics is in a position to restore its national economy by its own unaided efforts." http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/QUNR22.html (for more detail, see http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/USR22.html - where Stalin adds military factors). In other words, the political Union was justified primarily on economic and military grounds. But this begs the question of why economic and military cooperation was not possible on the basis of politically autonomous federated states, which was the original idea. In reality, the Union had much more to do with imposing centralised rule by the CPSU, strategic control over resources, and defence considerations. For his modernisation programme, Stalin needed to bypass all legal and political obstructions. There's no denying that the republics benefited economically a lot from participation in the Union, but it is also true that they lost their political/cultural autonomy and that the nationalities question wasn't thereby resolved. Whether the move to a "Union" was "imperialist" I suppose depends on your general definition of imperialism - I had in mind the domination of one nation or people by another, something which is not specific to capitalism. But the last word on that issue belongs to the people actually living there. You: Yes. But didn't Marx and Engels also put forward a sharp "dividing line" between Utopian socialism and "Scientific socialism"? Me: Well Engels certainly did in his pamphlet, but generally he and Marx were more sympathetic to the so-called utopian socialists that the Marxists were. I personally do not agree with the notion of "scientific socialism" because socialism is a moral and political stance/movement, and this being the case, it cannot itself be "scientific", it can only be informed by scientific insight into social problems and social reconstruction. I draw a sharp distinction between science and ideology, and I don't believe in "scientific ideology" or scientism. It is certainly true that science and ideology influence each other, but they should not be conflated. Marxists want to freeze what Engels said into a fixed dogma, but this ignores a whole century of historical development. Why should we adhere to a 19th century conception of socialism? If anything can be learnt from Marx & Engels, it is that they viewed the development of socialist thought historically, in the context of the times. You: Couldn't the same be said about the works of Maximillen Rubel? Me: I'm not sure about that, as I haven't read enough of the French literature yet. You: What did you think about the hypothetical "socialisms" that I listed in my last reply to you? Me: Well I wouldn't quarrel with that, except that my concern is more with actually existing movements referring to socialist ideas. And I would support some, and oppose others.. just like Marx & Engels did in their time. Jurriaan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT