The Russian Revolution of 1917 was not the revolution of the most advanced capitalist societies predicted by Karl Marx. As Hobsbawm puts it, "Capitalism had proved far easier to overthrow where it was weak or barely existed than in its heartlands." (ibid. p.82) Even within Russia, Hobsbawm doubts the ostensibly "progressive" effects of the revolution: "What remained [after revolution and civil war] was a Russia even more firmly anchored in the past... [W]hat actually governed the country was an undergrowth of smaller and larger bureaucracy, on average even less educated and qualified than before." (ibid. p.379)
It is a central thesis of Hobsbawm's book that, from the start, State Communism betrayed the socialist and internationalist vision it claimed to uphold. In particular, State Communism always dispensed with the democratic element of the socialist vision: "Lenin... concluded from the start that the liberal horse was not a runner in the Russian revolutionary race." (ibid. p.58) This anti-liberalism ran deep. In 1933, with Benito Mussolini firmly in control of Italy, "Moscow insisted that the Italian communist leader P. Togliatti withdraw the suggestion that, perhaps, social-democracy was not the primary danger, at least in Italy." (ibid. p.104)
RE:The failure of communism - wikipedia.org
by imran patel on Sep 01, 2007 07:27 PM Permalink
contd...
As for support for international revolution, "The communist revolutions actually made (Yugoslavia, Albania, later China) were made against Stalin's advice. The Soviet view was that, both internationally and within each country, post-war politics should continue within the framework of the all-embracing anti-fascist alliance... There is no doubt that Stalin meant all this seriously, and tried to prove it by dissolving the Comintern in 1943, and the Communist Party of the USA in 1944. (ibid. p.168) "[T]he Chinese Communist regime, though it criticized the USSR for betraying revolutionary movements after the break between the two countries, has no comparable record of practical support for Third World liberation movements." (ibid. p. 72)
On the other hand, he is no friend of the Maoist doctrine of perpetual revolution: "Mao was fundamentally convinced of the importance of struggle, conflict and high tension as something that was not only essential to life but prevented the relapse into the weaknesses of the old Chinese society, whose very insistence on unchanging permanence and harmony had been its weakness." (ibid. p.469) Hobsbawm draws a straight line from this belief to the disastrous Great Leap Forward and the subsequent Chinese famine of 1959-1961.
Communism, Hobsbawm argues, ultimately fell because, eventually, "...hardly anyone believed in the system or felt any loyalty to it, not even those who governed it." (ibid., p.488)
RE:The failure of communism - wikipedia.org
by Prem Mohan on Sep 01, 2007 07:32 PM Permalink
1. Lenin could overthrow the Czars because the Russian state had been weakened by the Great War.
2. Mao overthrew the Nationalist Government in China which has been weakened by the second world war and the struggle against the japanese.
3. In 150 years since Mao, we have no evidence that Communism can succeed. On the other hand, we have many examples of its failure.
4. Do Prakash karat and Sitaram Yechury really believe that they can succeed where Mao and Stalin failed?
