What Is Socialism?
[This is a letter I sent to my friend Bob Weil on Dec. 20, 2013. I’m
very saddened to report that Bob died in March 2014. This brought to a sudden
end the many valuable political conversations I had with Bob over the years. We
did not always agree, but we certainly helped each other think through many
issues more deeply. I will really miss those conversations. The letter below is
my response to one of these conversations we had the day before it was sent.
Although I’m sure that Bob intended to respond to this letter in one way or
another, unfortunately he never got the chance to do so. However, I am posting
this letter anyway, because I think it raises some issues of interest to many other people as well. Several
links to the Dictionary
of Revolutionary Marxism have also been added as an aid to readers who may
not be familiar with other Marxist terms and events. —Scott H.]
Hi Bob,
In our conversation yesterday you made some criticisms of me with regard to my
use and conception of the word ‘socialism’, and specifically pointed to what
you considered to be an inconsistency in my previously having said that the
Soviet Union during the Stalin era was socialist while at the same time
claiming that Cuba is not socialist. As usual in my verbal discussions I didn’t
do a very good job in defending my position; so I’ll try to do a better job
now.
If I were setting out to write an essay on this topic I would begin by first
emphasizing and elaborating on a couple points that are not widely or
sufficiently appreciated:
1) The great importance of definitions in science (and the fact that
elaborating scientific theory in part means specifying the meaning of various
key technical terms).
2) The fact that as sciences develop, the definitions of these technical terms
often need to be refined or change along with the scientific theory as a whole.
These things are true in social science too. For example the term ‘morpheme’ in
linguistics was originally defined as the “smallest element of meaning”, but is
now (despite what it still says in dictionaries) defined in a more complex way
about the occurrence of distinguishable phoneme clusters, etc.
I’m going to assume we fully agree on these two points, but if we don’t then we
can get into those matters further. I am also assuming that we view Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
as being a science and are striving to use scientific methods in its elaboration
and employment. If we don’t fully agree on that, then we need to explore that
issue a lot more too.
*
* *
Obviously, it depends on what we mean by the word ‘socialism’ whether it
is correct to say that Stalin’s USSR or Cuba were (or are) socialist countries.
And, in conversations among our fellow revolutionary Marxists I think it is
reasonable to assume that the definition or conception that we need to employ
is the Marxist one.
Thus the fact that many people use the term ‘socialism’ in very different ways
is totally irrelevant, just as is the fact that many non-scientists use the
term ‘mass’ differently than it is used in physics. (As we joked yesterday,
some people consider America under Obama to be “socialist”!) Similarly,
European welfare states, established by “Social Democratic” parties, have
commonly been called “socialist”. But this is NOT what is meant by socialism in
Marxist theory.
It seems to me that there are three central principles in what we Marxists
mean, or should mean, by socialism (all explicit in Marx, Lenin & Mao, and
each of which can be considerably elaborated on):
1) The economic aspect: I.e., a society in which the basic economic principle
is “From each according to their ability, to each according to their work.”
[This is of course opposed to not only capitalist society, but is also
different from a future communist society where the basic economic principle is
“From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.”] Note
that even this economic aspect of socialism should NOT be considered as just “state
ownership” of the means of production. However, ownership by a proletarian
state and the existence of socialist planning are generally important parts
of the economic aspect of socialism.
2) The political aspect: I.e., actual political power and rule by the
proletariat and its genuine representatives, in the genuine interests of the
proletariat and broader masses.
3) The transformational aspect: The fact that we view socialism as a dynamic
(and unstable!) transitional stage between capitalism and communism.
Although all these points are already in Marx’s own writings, the special
emphasis on this third point is today most characteristic of those of us who
call ourselves Maoists.
There are of course many other things which can reasonably be said to characterize
socialism. One such is the central concern about both the short-term and
long-term interests and welfare of the people. I would consider that to be a
corollary of the political aspect of socialism (principle #2), and perhaps to
some degree a corollary of principle #1 as well. Similarly, socialism can and
should be viewed as an era when the capitalist law of value is ever more
restricted. I would consider that to be a corollary of principle #3.
So I am saying that from a Marxist theoretical point of view deciding whether
or not a country (at some particular time) is socialist or not is basically the
same as deciding whether or not all three of these principles truly apply.
Of course there will be clear cases in both directions, and some cases which
are less clear. (This means there is indeed, as you suggested, a continuum of
sorts, but this continuum does NOT include welfare states, Obama “socialism”
and other bourgeois conceptions of socialism.)
Calling the U.S. today “socialist” is indeed laughably false! But why,
exactly? From the MLM perspective it is because NONE of the three principles
above hold at all for the U.S. today.
A clear case in the other direction was China in, say, 1975, in which all three
principles certainly held. Of course, there were still some weaknesses with
those principles even then and there, as there is always going to be in the
real world. (Despite reaching the greatest levels so far in human history, the
direct democratic control of the people over their collective lives, at work
and everywhere else, still had plenty of room to further improve in a major
way, for example.)
How about Russia in 1917 immediately following the Bolshevik revolution? Was it
socialist? No, strictly speaking it was not yet socialist. Few economic
transformations had yet been made. However, Lenin stated that it was proper to
call this a socialist revolution, and Russia a socialist country, because of
the class and party ruling it, and because of the changes they were definitely
going to make.
Similarly, we can’t be unreasonably strict about any of the specific three
aspects or principles of socialism. When it became necessary to end “war
communism” in Russia and establish the NEP, this was in fact a step backward toward
capitalism and away from communism. But it was a temporary retreat,
recognized full well by Lenin and (most of) the Bolsheviks as a necessary
short-term backward step. But the overall transformation of society in Russia
in that era was still in the direction of first fully establishing socialism
(socialist planning, etc.) with the genuine goal of transforming that socialism
into communism.
So then, how about Stalin’s Soviet Union?
From an economic aspect, there was indeed some very substantial transformation
of capitalism into socialism in both industry and agriculture. (True, this
transformation in the countryside was done horribly incorrectly, without the mass line and
even downright criminally, but it was nevertheless a transformation into
cooperative socialist forms and away from capitalism.) So the principle
of “... to each according to his work” was pretty much established.
But any further socialist economic transformation then pretty much ceased by the
mid-1930s. From that point on Stalin promoted what I call “socialist
economism”, that is, the program of expanding production but without
further changes to the relations
of production, and with little or no progressive diminution of the law of value.
Mao later explicitly criticized Stalin for not developing and implementing any
further transformations in the direction of communism. He said that Stalin
seemed to be “at a loss” about how to do this.
From the political aspect, the state was in the hands of representatives of the
proletariat (the CPSU), certainly to begin with. But the picture here is quite
clouded. Stalin ruled from above in a paternalistic manner, as Mao
appropriately described it. So in one sense he (and his regime) did represent
the interests of the proletariat, but in another sense he didn’t. A new
bourgeois class developed within the Party, and Stalin even inadvertently
promoted this! But as long as Stalin was alive they didn’t come to power as a “class
for itself”.
So how to sum this all up? I think the most rational summary is that, yes, the
Soviet Union became socialist economically in the Stalin era, and should be
overall described as socialist in that period despite its very serious
shortcomings (which Stalin himself was mostly responsible for) which led to the
overthrow of socialism after Stalin’s death.
The Soviet Union was no longer socialist when Khrushchev came to power because:
1) A new bourgeoisie within the CPSU had come to power; i.e., politically it
was no longer socialism. And 2) Because there was no longer even the
possibility that eventually under this regime new social transformations in the
direction of communism would be made. It is true that state planning and state
ownership of the means of production continued, but given that society was now
ruled by a new bourgeoisie in its own interests, this now became not socialism,
but rather state
capitalism.
To think of the USSR in the revisionist era as “socialist” is to completely
reject the concept of socialism as a proletarian ruled society governed by the
principle of “... to each according to his work”, and which is a transitional
period between capitalism and communism. We Maoists take that idea about
socialism being a period of transition toward communism seriously!
What about Cuba?
In my view this was originally an anti-imperialist, nationalist revolution
against a comprador puppet dictator. And, as such, it was certainly something
to be supported. After seizing power Castro did in fact move to what is
commonly called “the left”, i.e. in the direction of state ownership of the
means of production and improving the condition of the people. To a
considerable degree they also implemented the principle of “... to each
according to their work.”
Far more than Stalin, Castro and his associates have operated in a very
paternalistic manner. They truly do care about the welfare of the people, about
improving mass education and health, etc., and have in fact made great strides
in those directions. But this definitely does not mean that the working class
itself is running Cuba.
Within a few years of the revolution most of the progressive social
transformations in the relations of production also stopped in Cuba. Moreover,
while Cuba largely escaped the clutches of U.S. imperialism, it did so by
voluntarily coming under the clutches of Soviet social-imperialism—including
ideologically (for the most part).
The reasons these things happened is that Cuba was not ruled by representatives
of a revolutionary proletariat, but by a paternalistic national bourgeoisie who
happened to favor state capitalism (under the name of “socialism”).
So Cuba is in many ways quite an anomaly, and certainly not a model for
revolutions elsewhere.
In my view the primary reason why Cuba is not socialist (and never was) is that
it was never ruled by a revolutionary proletariat determined to transform the
economy from capitalism to communism. I.e., I’m stressing again the importance
of that third aspect (or principle) of what socialism really is, that “Maoist”
principle.
Of course objective conditions meant that a complete transformation to
communism in Cuba alone was out of the question. (Generally we Marxists believe
this can only be completed on a worldwide basis.) But many more steps in
that direction could certainly have been taken. The opposition of Castro to the
Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China and its siding with and
supporting Soviet state capitalism speaks volumes, I’d say.
And all the changes in Cuban society are now back in the direction of Western
style monopoly capitalism, never in the direction of communism.
Of course we should continue to oppose U.S. attacks on Cuba, the blockade, etc.
It is even fine to admire many of the things that Cuba has done for its people,
especially in the areas of health and education. I admire those things myself,
which have been accomplished under very difficult circumstances.
But it is very wrong to put Cuba forward as a model for socialist revolution.
That’s what I most object to. Real socialism is a step toward communism. Cuba
is no such step, and has actually been more of an ideological obstacle to
promoting real socialist revolution around the world.
*
* *
One thing I didn’t mention yet is the point [another friend] D. raised: That
the conception in the world revolutionary movement of what socialism is has
changed quite a bit since the days of Marx. In a way this is strange, since all
three main aspects/principles of socialism I mentioned were already clearly in
Marx. But there has nevertheless been a very noticeable shift in emphasis over
time. And that third “transformational” aspect of socialism has greatly
increased in importance in our conception. It has become central in place of
state ownership and planning.
We would no longer talk in the way Lenin occasionally did about socialism being
the nationalization of monopolies that had developed under
capitalist-imperialism. We have such things as the experience of Soviet state
capitalism, the Labour Party’s bailing out of failing British corporations
through nationalization (and similar things in the U.S.) and the experience of
the struggles against the bourgeoisie in the GPCR to give us a much more
sophisticated understanding of socialism now.
At this point, looking back at socialism in the Soviet Union in the Stalin era,
we have a lot more criticisms than
Communists of that era did. We see more clearly the serious weaknesses it had.
We have the knowledge of how things later developed as well as the knowledge of
democratic method of mass line leadership, for example. We have to be smarter
now given our movement’s increased experience.
So this is also part of the reason we may seem “harder” on Cuba than we are on
Stalin’s USSR when it comes to calling one but not the other “socialism”.
Castro has much less of an “excuse”!
*
* *
Well, I know very well that we still don’t agree about most of this, Bob. And
that’s OK! But I just wanted to explain why I see no contradiction at all in my
views about socialism in Stalin’s Russia and Castro’s Cuba.
I would even admit that these are both somewhat “difficult” cases to decide (in
comparison with China in 1975 and the U.S. today, for example!).
But I do insist that we have to have some theoretical principles to guide us in
deciding whether a country is socialist or not. And if they are not the three
principles I listed, then what are they?
Scott
