When you see that “)))”, you’ll realize you’re talking to a Russian or a Russian speaker.
Okay, in that case, let’s talk about humor.
Let’s talk about folklore. Folklore isn’t about the state; it’s about the people. Folklore reflects the collective mindset of the people—I think you’d agree with that… Vox populi, vox Dei.
Here’s a Soviet-era joke; these few lines capture the whole essence:
“To launch a satellite, the Chinese formed a human pyramid a thousand stories high, but it collapsed because the guy on the three-hundred-and-seventeenth floor hadn’t properly mastered Mao’s Little Red Book.”
You’re an intelligent person, so you surely understand that my views were formed back in early childhood. It’s something ingrained at a subconscious level.
I understand and can empathize with your views, I just have disagreements on certain aspects. These of course are colored by both of our upbringings, you within the Soviet Union and me entirely disconnected from socialism.
I very often fill gaps in my theoretical knowledge with personal experience—please forgive me for that!
I would also like to note that the interpretation of Marx’s theory in the USSR was somewhat simplified. For instance, the USSR acknowledged the existence of a primitive communal system but not the “Asiatic mode of production.” I only heard about the latter recently. I would like to highlight this aspect; perhaps the key to what is currently happening in China lies there.
Given that my knowledge of Marx’s theory is superficial—and considering that Marx did not outline a precise model for constructing socialism (his work was largely a theoretical analysis of capitalism and its consequences)—it is worth noting that philosophy never sets concrete tasks for the individual.
Regarding your view of Marx’s philosophy, I can also point out an inaccuracy. You state that Marx envisioned the construction of socialism only within the context of developed capitalism, based on highly advanced productive forces.
However, that is not entirely the case. In a letter to Vera Zasulich (dated March 8, 1881),
Karl Marx stated that Russia could bypass the painful stage of capitalism. He emphasized that his theory was not a universal historical prescription and that the Russian peasant commune could, under certain conditions, become the nucleus of socialist development. Marx told Zasulich at the time that education was one of the most crucial factors in the possibility of bypassing the agonizing stage of capitalism.
The bottom line is this: Lenin and Trotsky supported the NEP, whereas Stalin sided with “Zasulich.” Stalin turned out to be entirely right, and he did not deviate from Marx’s theory by even a millimeter.
In the preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the Manifesto, Marx and Engels say that the Russian commune could “pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership” only if the Russian Revolution (which he saw as inevitable, though it was not inevitable that it would “take[] place in time” (first draft of letter to Zasulich), and in the Letter to Otecestvenniye Zapisky he says that if Russia continues on its path, it will have lost this chance to skip the phase of capitalist development) is supported by wider revolution in the West. Otherwise, the Russian commune “must [] first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West.”
There’s zero approval by Marx here for the notion of skipping the phase of private production/property in one country without a wider revolution.
Marx told Zasulich at the time that education was one of the most crucial factors in the possibility of bypassing the agonizing stage of capitalism.
You misinterpret Marx’s statement. I’m fully aware of Marx’s views on the Russian commune movement, the problem is that you assume the Soviet model is what Marx was referring to, and that a more classically Marxist understanding of socialism was not what he meant. Marx was fairly explicit in what a socialist state would be, one where public ownership is principal and the working classes control the state. The Russian peasantry could have bypassed the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and went straight to a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, but they would not be able to avoid the problem of transitioning small ownership to large, industrialized ownership without the aid of markets.
The fact of the matter is that private property existed de facto in the USSR. One of the mistakes of former socialism was merely trying to punish private ownership, rather than subordinate it to the public sector. Marx analyzed markets as being enormously useful in stitching together all of the small owners and building up productive forces, and public ownership as being superior at running large industry.
Stalin ending the NEP early was a matter of survival, and was correct. China’s conditions are different, and now occupies a more classically Marxist economy. It isn’t even the same as the NEP, China was closer to the NEP under Mao, the socialist market economy of China is a more classically Marxist economy, with the ability to be so precisely because the imperialists cannot afford to decouple from them.
I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it.
When you see that “)))”, you’ll realize you’re talking to a Russian or a Russian speaker.
Okay, in that case, let’s talk about humor.
Let’s talk about folklore. Folklore isn’t about the state; it’s about the people. Folklore reflects the collective mindset of the people—I think you’d agree with that… Vox populi, vox Dei.
Here’s a Soviet-era joke; these few lines capture the whole essence:
“To launch a satellite, the Chinese formed a human pyramid a thousand stories high, but it collapsed because the guy on the three-hundred-and-seventeenth floor hadn’t properly mastered Mao’s Little Red Book.”
You’re an intelligent person, so you surely understand that my views were formed back in early childhood. It’s something ingrained at a subconscious level.
So, please forgive me for my past stubbornness.
I understand and can empathize with your views, I just have disagreements on certain aspects. These of course are colored by both of our upbringings, you within the Soviet Union and me entirely disconnected from socialism.
I very often fill gaps in my theoretical knowledge with personal experience—please forgive me for that!
I would also like to note that the interpretation of Marx’s theory in the USSR was somewhat simplified. For instance, the USSR acknowledged the existence of a primitive communal system but not the “Asiatic mode of production.” I only heard about the latter recently. I would like to highlight this aspect; perhaps the key to what is currently happening in China lies there.
Given that my knowledge of Marx’s theory is superficial—and considering that Marx did not outline a precise model for constructing socialism (his work was largely a theoretical analysis of capitalism and its consequences)—it is worth noting that philosophy never sets concrete tasks for the individual.
Regarding your view of Marx’s philosophy, I can also point out an inaccuracy. You state that Marx envisioned the construction of socialism only within the context of developed capitalism, based on highly advanced productive forces.
However, that is not entirely the case. In a letter to Vera Zasulich (dated March 8, 1881),
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Засулич,_Вера_Ивановна
Karl Marx stated that Russia could bypass the painful stage of capitalism. He emphasized that his theory was not a universal historical prescription and that the Russian peasant commune could, under certain conditions, become the nucleus of socialist development. Marx told Zasulich at the time that education was one of the most crucial factors in the possibility of bypassing the agonizing stage of capitalism.
The bottom line is this: Lenin and Trotsky supported the NEP, whereas Stalin sided with “Zasulich.” Stalin turned out to be entirely right, and he did not deviate from Marx’s theory by even a millimeter.
In the preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the Manifesto, Marx and Engels say that the Russian commune could “pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership” only if the Russian Revolution (which he saw as inevitable, though it was not inevitable that it would “take[] place in time” (first draft of letter to Zasulich), and in the Letter to Otecestvenniye Zapisky he says that if Russia continues on its path, it will have lost this chance to skip the phase of capitalist development) is supported by wider revolution in the West. Otherwise, the Russian commune “must [] first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West.”
There’s zero approval by Marx here for the notion of skipping the phase of private production/property in one country without a wider revolution.
No he didn’t.
You misinterpret Marx’s statement. I’m fully aware of Marx’s views on the Russian commune movement, the problem is that you assume the Soviet model is what Marx was referring to, and that a more classically Marxist understanding of socialism was not what he meant. Marx was fairly explicit in what a socialist state would be, one where public ownership is principal and the working classes control the state. The Russian peasantry could have bypassed the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and went straight to a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, but they would not be able to avoid the problem of transitioning small ownership to large, industrialized ownership without the aid of markets.
The fact of the matter is that private property existed de facto in the USSR. One of the mistakes of former socialism was merely trying to punish private ownership, rather than subordinate it to the public sector. Marx analyzed markets as being enormously useful in stitching together all of the small owners and building up productive forces, and public ownership as being superior at running large industry.
Stalin ending the NEP early was a matter of survival, and was correct. China’s conditions are different, and now occupies a more classically Marxist economy. It isn’t even the same as the NEP, China was closer to the NEP under Mao, the socialist market economy of China is a more classically Marxist economy, with the ability to be so precisely because the imperialists cannot afford to decouple from them.