Socialism or two-tier capitalism?

[DaraghM]

Service, Robert Lenin: A Biography
Hosking, Geoffrey A history of the Soviet Union

Expanded bibliography upon request.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Actually I will -

Socialism in One Country was a thesis put forward by Joseph Stalin in 1924 and further supported by Nikolai Bukharin. The thesis held that given the defeat of all communist revolutions in Europe from 1917-1921 except in Russia, the Soviet Union should begin to strengthen itself internally. The thesis of socialism in one country was a departure from the position that an underdeveloped and agrarian country like Russia would only be able to build socialism with help from successful revolutionary governments in the more industrialized parts of Europe, a position still upheld by Trotsky even as his position was gradually defeated.

Lenin died on --- 21st January 1924 - before 'Socialism in One Country'

[Jolly Red Giant]

As opposed to those propelled into unlimited prosperity by the Great Leap Forward?

there you go again - assuming I support the Chinese regime.

[DaraghM]

Actually I will -

Socialism in One Country was a thesis put forward by Joseph Stalin in 1924 and further supported by Nikolai Bukharin. The thesis held that given the defeat of all communist revolutions in Europe from 1917-1921 except in Russia, the Soviet Union should begin to strengthen itself internally. The thesis of socialism in one country was a departure from the position that an underdeveloped and agrarian country like Russia would only be able to build socialism with help from successful revolutionary governments in the more industrialized parts of Europe, a position still upheld by Trotsky even as his position was gradually defeated.

Lenin died on --- 21st January 1924 - before 'Socialism in One Country'

Even if the doctrinal definition fo 'socialism in one country' was put forward only after Lenin's death he pursued policies basically in keeping with its line, that is not pursuing any more revolutionary wars in Europe and adopting the policy of 'peaceful co-existence' should be pursued, as well as increased trade with the Capitalist societies (quote: the capitalists will sell us the rope by which we hang them.') Lenin had rejected Trotsky's essential line of 'permanent revolution' as flawed. The focus was on building the material base for Socialism in Russia (hence the New Economic Policy.) Even if it wasn't all laid out in a thesis, it was what he was doing.

[DaraghM]

And lets not forget the Treaty of Rapallo shall we? The quintessence of 'peaceful co-existence.'

[DaraghM]

In any case this is all irrelevant. You're claiming Socialism can produce greater growth and human equality. How? I've already pointed out that managerial 'Risk Aversion' is a great inhibitor in the Planned Economy towards technological development and increased production. How does one overcome that?

[Jolly Red Giant]

Actually I will -

Socialism in One Country was a thesis put forward by Joseph Stalin in 1924 and further supported by Nikolai Bukharin. The thesis held that given the defeat of all communist revolutions in Europe from 1917-1921 except in Russia, the Soviet Union should begin to strengthen itself internally. The thesis of socialism in one country was a departure from the position that an underdeveloped and agrarian country like Russia would only be able to build socialism with help from successful revolutionary governments in the more industrialized parts of Europe, a position still upheld by Trotsky even as his position was gradually defeated.

Lenin died on --- 21st January 1924 - before 'Socialism in One Country'

Even if the doctrinal definition fo 'socialism in one country' was put forward only after Lenin's death he pursued policies basically in keeping with its line, that is not pursuing any more revolutionary wars in Europe and adopting the policy of 'peaceful co-existence' should be pursued, as well as increased trade with the Capitalist societies (quote: the capitalists will sell us the rope by which we hang them.') Lenin had rejected Trotsky's essential line of 'permanent revolution' as flawed. The focus was on building the material base for Socialism in Russia (hence the New Economic Policy.) Even if it wasn't all laid out in a thesis, it was what he was doing.

So he wasn't actually responsible - but he was doing it anyway - great deduction. If you want to understand the facts of Marxist theory you really should study the writing of Lenin on this issue - rather than the hogde-podge that Robert Service calls a biography

[Jolly Red Giant]

In any case this is all irrelevant. You're claiming Socialism can produce greater growth and human equality. How? I've already pointed out that managerial 'Risk Aversion' is a great inhibitor in the Planned Economy towards technological development and increased production. How does one overcome that?

Again you are quoting right-wing economists talking about a Stalinist distorted economy rather than democratic socialist planning.

This whole notion of capitalists willing to take risks is absolute nonsense. Those individuals who control the vast wealth in society never take a risk with their own money. They can manipulate entire economies, stock markets, currencies for their own financial benefit and if they want to risk something it is usually someone elses money (often ordinary taxpayers through pension funds etc.).

Despite all the corruption, distortions and brutality of Stalinist Russia the planned economy succeeded in transforming Russian society from being more backward than India in 1920 to launching the first satillite in 1958. Technological development and increased production does not come from capitalism - indeed in many cases new technological and scientific development occurs in the universities of the world and it is then stolen by big business patrons (an example are new anti- HIV drugs which are making billions for drug companies but were developed in several American universities.

You really need to get over this starry eyed view of capitalism - or you are in for a rude awakening (unless of course Daddy is one of the 2,000 or so individuals that control the vast majority of the Irish economy).

[Jolly Red Giant]

Lenin had rejected Trotsky's essential line of 'permanent revolution' as flawed.

Just spotted this one - Oh my god - you have actually been reading stuff written by Stalinists --- Shock - Horror - No wonder you haven't a clue about Lenin or Socialism.

[ibis]

Or some might say, by the badly planned and managed transition to capitalism - which has been managed well elsewhere (NZ, China).

Please enlighten me - When was NZ (New Zealand I presume) ever Stalinist?

I don't believe I ever said it was. It did have a largely planned economy.

And China's process is far from finished but still leading to a massive increase in the percentage of the population driven into abject poverty.

Ah, of course. That's why they're doing it, then. Are you saying that there are now more Chinese in absolute poverty than, say, 20 years ago? You're aware that not a single official source agrees with you?

This whole notion of capitalists willing to take risks is absolute nonsense. Those individuals who control the vast wealth in society never take a risk with their own money. They can manipulate entire economies, stock markets, currencies for their own financial benefit and if they want to risk something it is usually someone elses money (often ordinary taxpayers through pension funds etc.).

Not quite true, not quite false. They do take risks, with their own money, but can afford to diversify their investments widely enough to be fairly safe. It's a numbers game - if you can afford to put money into, say, 10 startups, knowing that 5 will fail, 4 will break even, and 1 will produce 20 times the money you put in, there's no 'existential' risk of actually losing all your money.

As to the '2000 individuals' - yes, almost certainly true. Historically, every single human society that's been studied has shown roughly the same figure for the numbers in the "golden circle" - 0.7% of families are the actual movers and shakers (I'd have to look up the exact figure, but it's the right ballpark).

That number has virtually nothing to do with capitalism, though - it's the same for pre-industrial societies, kleptocracies, and notionally socialist countries.

Did you ever agree on a country that actually was socialist, by the way?