Ironies of History

[WeepingElf]

Yes, the Khmer Rouge's ideology in in many ways what one gets when one takes Maoism and turns it up to eleven, and then simply breaks the knob. The view that it was not "real Marxism" to me seems to be a view that only the original Marxism of Marx and Engels was "real" Marxism, and from this perspective one can argue that Maoism wasn't "real Marxism" either - and arguably Leninism wasn't either.

I have always felt that Leninism was an attempt to speed-grow a socialist society by brute force. I am no expert on Marx and Engels's teachings, but I think they were democratic socialists who believed that a free, democratic society would develop from capitalism to socialism by itself because that was the "logic of history". And AFAIK, they expected socialism to be reached first by a prosperous, highly industrialized society such as the United States or Germany, not in a semi-feudal, barely industrialized backwater like Russia.

[Travis B.]

Yes, the Khmer Rouge's ideology in in many ways what one gets when one takes Maoism and turns it up to eleven, and then simply breaks the knob. The view that it was not "real Marxism" to me seems to be a view that only the original Marxism of Marx and Engels was "real" Marxism, and from this perspective one can argue that Maoism wasn't "real Marxism" either - and arguably Leninism wasn't either.

I have always felt that Leninism was an attempt to speed-grow a socialist society by brute force. I am no expert on Marx and Engels's teachings, but I think they were democratic socialists who believed that a free, democratic society would develop from capitalism to socialism by itself because that was the "logic of history". And AFAIK, they expected socialism to be reached first by a prosperous, highly industrialized society such as the United States or Germany, not in a semi-feudal, barely industrialized backwater like Russia.

This is indeed my impression of all this myself - and it should not be forgotten that there have been Marxists whose views are just what you and I consider Marx and Engels's views to be (e.g. the council communists) - that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (unfortunate wording that) was achieved by the working class taking power together as a whole and forming a free, democratic society, rather than any "vanguard party" seizing control in their name.

[hwhatting]

Of course not, but I'm not convinced you can claim to hold a Communist ideology if at least your propaganda doesn't gesture in the direction of internationalism.

Adding to what others have said, the Khmer Rouge seem a clear case of "Communism in One Country". I don't know enough about their writings to see whether they assumed that it would later spread or whether they didn't care, but offshoots of an ideology disemphasiszing or ignoring parts of the teaching, or even turning it on its head, is nothing unusual - see how Christianity went from an emphasis on worldly poverty and rich men not likekely to go to heaven, towards paying just lip-service to these teachings and then turning them on their head in the various forms of prosperity gospel.

[Travis B.]

Of course not, but I'm not convinced you can claim to hold a Communist ideology if at least your propaganda doesn't gesture in the direction of internationalism.

Adding to what others have said, the Khmer Rouge seem a clear case of "Communism in One Country". I don't know enough about their writings to see whether they assumed that it would later spread or whether they didn't care, but offshoots of an ideology disemphasiszing or ignoring parts of the teaching, or even turning it on its head, is nothing unusual - see how Christianity went from an emphasis on worldly poverty and rich men not likekely to go to heaven, towards paying just lip-service to these teachings and then turning them on their head in the various forms of prosperity gospel.

To me insisting that "Communism in One Country" is not Marxism is just like insisting that "prosperity gospel" is not Christianity - both of these to me are good example of "no true Scotsman".

[hwhatting]

To me insisting that "Communism in One Country" is not Marxism is just like insisting that "prosperity gospel" is not Christianity - both of these to me are good example of "no true Scotsman".

Exactly, although it's a bit more complicated. In a history of ideas, forms with "Communism in One Country" are a branch of Marxism, the same as "prosperity gospel" is a branch of Christianity; but both in an inside view (by other Marxist / Christian groups) and in a classification based not on intellectual descent, but on essential features, it is possible to exclude both, and it has indeed been argued that Leninism and its subsequent extensions are a perversion of Marxism, or that "prosperity gospel" is a perversion of Christianity, which both don't belong there. Or take Mormonism - by descent, it's clearly Christian, but one could argue (and it's frequently done) that by introducing a new revelation and holy book Mormonism actually isn't a part of Christianity anymore. Whether one goes along or not depends on how important one thinks descent is compared to features, and which features are essential.

[Emily]

I have always felt that Leninism was an attempt to speed-grow a socialist society by brute force. I am no expert on Marx and Engels's teachings, but I think they were democratic socialists who believed that a free, democratic society would develop from capitalism to socialism by itself because that was the "logic of history". And AFAIK, they expected socialism to be reached first by a prosperous, highly industrialized society such as the United States or Germany, not in a semi-feudal, barely industrialized backwater like Russia.

The second part of this is right (they expected revolution would succeed first in countries where the working class was most developed and entrenched, but instead it happened in a country where the capitalists were very underdeveloped and thus easier to defeat), but not the first; they were revolutionary socialists, not "democratic" socialists (at least as that term is used today), and while they did argue that the defeat of capitalism by socialism was inevitable, this does not at all mean it will happen on its own! They wrote a great deal—especially after the fall of the Paris Commune—of the necessity of revolutionaries to use force against counterrevolution ("have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution?"). The term "dictatorship of the proletariat", which refers to the newly victorious working class defending its rule using the mechanisms of the state (including force and the threat of force), originated with Marx (I think in the Critique of the Gotha Program).

[Travis B.]

To me insisting that "Communism in One Country" is not Marxism is just like insisting that "prosperity gospel" is not Christianity - both of these to me are good example of "no true Scotsman".

Exactly, although it's a bit more complicated. In a history of ideas, forms with "Communism in One Country" are a branch of Marxism, the same as "prosperity gospel" is a branch of Christianity; but both in an inside view (by other Marxist / Christian groups) and in a classification based not on intellectual descent, but on essential features, it is possible to exclude both, and it has indeed been argued that Leninism and its subsequent extensions are a perversion of Marxism, or that "prosperity gospel" is a perversion of Christianity, which both don't belong there. Or take Mormonism - by descent, it's clearly Christian, but one could argue (and it's frequently done) that by introducing a new revelation and holy book Mormonism actually isn't a part of Christianity anymore. Whether one goes along or not depends on how important one thinks descent is compared to features, and which features are essential.

The thing is that insisting on a classification based on essential features rather than intellectual descent allows one to disown inconvenient/embarrassing offshoots of one's ideology. E.g. if one insisted on classification based on essential features one could easily argue that much of authoritarian socialism (e.g. Communism) is not socialist at all in the first place (as it has consistently resulted in state capitalism when it has come to power), whereas if one judges it by intellectual descent one must consider it as a branch of socialism, however much one may be opposed to it.

[Travis B.]

I have always felt that Leninism was an attempt to speed-grow a socialist society by brute force. I am no expert on Marx and Engels's teachings, but I think they were democratic socialists who believed that a free, democratic society would develop from capitalism to socialism by itself because that was the "logic of history". And AFAIK, they expected socialism to be reached first by a prosperous, highly industrialized society such as the United States or Germany, not in a semi-feudal, barely industrialized backwater like Russia.

The second part of this is right (they expected revolution would succeed first in countries where the working class was most developed and entrenched, but instead it happened in a country where the capitalists were very underdeveloped and thus easier to defeat), but not the first; they were revolutionary socialists, not "democratic" socialists (at least as that term is used today), and while they did argue that the defeat of capitalism by socialism was inevitable, this does not at all mean it will happen on its own! They wrote a great deal—especially after the fall of the Paris Commune—of the necessity of revolutionaries to use force against counterrevolution ("have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution?). The term "dictatorship of the proletariat", which refers to the newly victorious working class defending its rule using the mechanisms of the state (including force and the threat of force), originated with Marx (I think in the Critique of the Gotha Program).

Democratic socialism is about combining democracy, not just at the state level but also at the workplace level, with socialism (one could very well argue that socialism requires industrial democracy, but that leads to the "no true Scotsman"s we have been talking about). It can be revolutionary or incremental. Just because most democratic socialists today are not revolutionary does not mean that democratic socialism is necessarily incremental.

[Emily]

I have always felt that Leninism was an attempt to speed-grow a socialist society by brute force. I am no expert on Marx and Engels's teachings, but I think they were democratic socialists who believed that a free, democratic society would develop from capitalism to socialism by itself because that was the "logic of history". And AFAIK, they expected socialism to be reached first by a prosperous, highly industrialized society such as the United States or Germany, not in a semi-feudal, barely industrialized backwater like Russia.

The second part of this is right (they expected revolution would succeed first in countries where the working class was most developed and entrenched, but instead it happened in a country where the capitalists were very underdeveloped and thus easier to defeat), but not the first; they were revolutionary socialists, not "democratic" socialists (at least as that term is used today), and while they did argue that the defeat of capitalism by socialism was inevitable, this does not at all mean it will happen on its own! They wrote a great deal—especially after the fall of the Paris Commune—of the necessity of revolutionaries to use force against counterrevolution ("have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution?). The term "dictatorship of the proletariat", which refers to the newly victorious working class defending its rule using the mechanisms of the state (including force and the threat of force), originated with Marx (I think in the Critique of the Gotha Program).

Democratic socialism is about combining democracy, not just at the state level but also at the workplace level, with socialism (one could very well argue that socialism requires industrial democracy, but that leads to the "no true Scotsman"s we have been talkiing about). It can be revolutionary or incremental. Just because most democratic socialists today are not revolutionary does not mean that democratic socialism is necessarily incremental.

WeepingElf's post suggested (or at least read to me as suggesting) that Marx and Engels believed that a peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism would happen on its own and that they were not in support of such a transition happening by force. My post was a correction intended to clarify Marx and Engels' position on revolution. I'm not interested into getting into a debate about what "counts" as socialism or communism or Christianity or whatever else is going on in this thread.

[Travis B.]

WeepingElf's post suggested (or at least read to me as suggesting) that Marx and Engels believed that a peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism would happen on its own and that they were not in support of such a transition happening by force. My post was a correction intended to clarify Marx and Engels' position on revolution. I'm not interested into getting into a debate about what "counts" as socialism or communism or Christianity or whatever else is going on in this thread.

It should be remembered, though, that being revolutionary and being vanguardist are orthogonal. Being revolutionary pertains to the complete restructuring of society at once rather than arriving at socialism through incremental steps. Being vanguardist pertains to having a party install socialism in the name of the working class rather than the working class bringing about socialism in an organic fashion. Socialism brought about by a truly popular revolution rather than by a vanguard party acting in the people's name, such as that which Marx favored, is revolutionary but not vanguardist. The innovation of Leninism was the idea that a vanguard party could bring about a socialist revolution for the working class without the working class being truly ready to bring about socialism of its own accord. Of course, one could argue that non-revolutionary democratic socialist parties which seek to use the state apparatus to bring about socialism without requiring the initiative of the people in bringing it about are also vanguardist.

[WeepingElf]

I should note that I am not a socialist myself - I am a liberal, believing in free enterprise but also in the social responsibility of entrepreneurs.

[Travis B.]

I should note that I am not a socialist myself - I am a liberal, believing in free enterprise but also in the social responsibility of entrepreneurs.

To me the key difference between liberalism and socialism is not market economies versus central planning but rather private or shareholder ownership of capital versus worker ownership and self-management of capital. I personally am for market economies, albeit with public investment in companies (as opposed to private investment, as under capitalism), but am all for worker ownership and self-management of capital, i.e. I am a market socialist. A lot of people make the mistake of equating socialism with central planning, something which I am opposed because I see it as being infeasible for managing any kind of complex, modern economy (which is why the Eastern Bloc economies did so poorly all things considered), and because I see central planning as being conducive to authoritarianism (because it takes away the ability of worker-owned and self-managed businesses to manage themselves in a democratic fashion).

[Raphael]

The British Conservative Party got their universally accepted nickname - the one they even used officially before they rebranded as "Conservatives" - from a derogatory term for Irish guerilla fighters against English rule in the 17th century.

Because, when Stuart kings of that time moved Anglicanism closer and closer to Catholicism, the Tories were the ones fully on board with that, so their opponents tried to make them look bad by comparing them to Irish Catholic rebels.

A while later, in the late 19th and early 20th century, they had become the main bulwark against any kind of self-government for Ireland.

[Raphael]

I just read a claim that in 1954, in his then-capacity as Senate Minority Leader, Lyndon B. Johnson was one of the men who kept the Eisenhower Administration - which was apparently internally divided on the matter - from coming to the aid of the French at Điện Biên Phủ.