Pseudo-Socialism or Some History of Russia (Part I)
Michael Batiukov
May 28, 2006
Letters I have received
Michael,
Thank you for your provocative submission. Unfortunately, this is not the type of article that the Journal is looking to publish in the near future.
Sincerely,
A. W., Editor-in-Chief
Georgetown Journal of International Affairs?
Dear Michael,
Thank you for submitting your article on pseudo-socialism to Dissent magazine. We read it thoroughly and appreciated the thought that went into your submission. Because of the large number of submissions we receive and the space and content constraints involved in putting out a quarterly, we regret to say that we won?t be able to use it. Our lack of more specific comment reflects on our own limited staff and time, not on the quality of the manuscript. We wish you the best in placing it elsewhere.
Sincerely,
The Editors
Dear Mr. Batiukov:
We have completed our review of your manuscript entitled "Pseudo-Socialism," and decided against publication. The Quarterly is able to accept less than one in ten manuscripts submitted and, unfortunately, we must reject a number that would be significant contributions to the human rights literature. We appreciate your giving us an opportunity to consider your manuscript and hope that we may have the benefit of future submissions from you.
Sincerely,
B. B. L., Human Rights Quarterly
Editors note: English is the author's second language. Although his essay is entirely readable, there is a syntactical style to it that I chose to leave in rather than edit. When you read Michael's essay, you hear his Russian accent clearly. I think it enhances the experience, I hope it will for you.
C. S., Editor-in-Chief , ?Newtopia Magazine?
This essay is dedicated to the Lost Generations of the Soviet Youth.
"...so you think you can tell
heaven from hell,
blue skies from pain...
Do you think you can tell?" -Pink Floyd, "Wish You Were Here"
The idea to write an essay about pseudo-socialism was born in January 1992 when I found out about the price of Moscow - New York air flight ticket. It was 186,945.00 roubles, the equivalent of 160 my monthly salaries, or 14 years of nutrition with spiritual food only.
Why? Why I have to live like a slave at the end of the XX century? Am I a slave? And what about most of the people around me. Why they live in this serfdom and like it? Or do they? What if they never had any other choice? What if they never had any kind of freedom of choice? Is it their fault to be born in the closed system? System with no choices and alternatives whatsoever. Unique system where it is normal to choose just one from just one. This is all I have got. Plenty, isn't it?
At that period of time everywhere in newspapers, and books, and magazines I could read: "Communism in Eastern Europe and the USSR has failed because ... communists did not understand the basic nature of a man, ... communists mistrusted the power of the free market, ... communists ignored incentives, democratic elections, human rights, private property, the profit-and-loss system, and market prices." and so on and so forth.
So, what is by the way "communism"? What does this word mean? I opened Webster's Encyclopedia: "communism - (French commun "common, general")- socialism imposed by revolution, based on the theories of the political philosophers Marx and Engels, emphasizing common ownership of the means of production and a planned economy.
Politically, it seeks to overthrow of capitalism through a proletarian revolution. The first communist state was the USSR after the revolution of 1917."
Hm, "communism" means "socialism" is just the same as "table" means "chair". They are different. Moreover, not one but two revolutions (in February and in October) happened in Russia in 1917. Also, the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) was formed in 1922 (not in 1917). Besides, in 1917 only 3% of the whole population of Russia were proletariat (workers).
Let's look further. So, what is "socialism"? What does this word mean? "Socialism - movement aiming to establish a classless society by substituting public for private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange."
Hold on. Is capitalism also a movement? "Capitalism - an economic system in which the principal means of production, distribution and exchange are in private (individual or corporate) hands and competitively operated for profit."
How come? Capitalism is an economic system but socialism is just a movement? Probably, socialism is an economic system also? What if it is a system where classes existed? What if it is a system in which the principal means of production, distribution and exchange were in private property of a new class? And operated for the profit of this class non-competitively? And the name of this class was partocracy - party aristocracy and bureaucracy? Communist partocracy? In this case it is impossible to call this system "socialism". Definitely this system should have the other name because it has totally different features behind its real meaning. Today I am convinced that the real name of this system should be "pseudo-socialism", never "socialism" or "communism".
Even Frederick Engels mentioned cautiously somewhere in the book "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific": "The separation of society into an exploiting and an exploited class, a ruling and an oppressed class, was the necessary consequences of the deficient and restricted development of production in former times. So long as the total social labor only yields a produce which but slightly exceeds that barely necessary for the existence of all; so long, therefore, as labor engages all or almost all the time of the great majority of the members of society - so long, of necessity, this society is divided into classes. Side by side with the great majority, exclusively bond slaves to labor, arises a class freed from directly productive labor, which looks after the general affairs of society: the direction of labor, State business, law, science, art, etc. It is, therefore, the law of division of labor that lies at the basis of the division into classes. But this does not prevent this division into classes from being carried out by means of violence and robbery, trickery and fraud. It does not prevent the ruling class, once having the upper hand, from consolidating its power at the expense of the working-class, from turning its social leadership into an intensified exploitation of the masses." Bravo Frederick!
As Larry Gambone once mentioned in The Fallacy of Labels ( July 30, 2003):
"Socialists, including Marx and Engels, had long warned of a pseudo-socialism arising and displacing the genuine article, a kind of coocoo's egg laid in the Socialist nest."
Nowadays it is very interesting to watch how such a nice theoretical utopian fairy tale was totally ruined along the way of its practical incarnation. It is very intriguing to see how theoretical socialism (communism) became pseudo-socialism in practice.
What "socialism" means is still an open question in the political and academic world. Usually politicians use the US definition of socialism and it is a synonym to "dictatorship" and "totalitarianism". In the academic world "socialism" usually means "state control of the economy". But today there many countries in which there are some socialist features used and they are nor dictatorships nor totalitarian and do not have too much state control of the economy.
Some would say that the US has become socialist because workers in this country have 40-hour work week and a minimum wage. Most of the workers have some medical and dental benefits paid by their companies or business owners. Also all workers are guaranteed to have Social Security retirement income. We accept those things today as normal political issues, but in reality, they're all from the socialist agenda, and things which were once considered too radical for a capitalist democracy. World has changed dramatically since 1917. Maybe it is time to find a new definition for socialism? Especially if real idealistic socialism did not exist at all.
Of course, we all know that mushrooms are valued as good food and certain species are considered delicacies. Many species of mushrooms are edible, but proper identification is essential to avoid illness and even death by toxic mushrooms. Some of them can be very poisonous and psychotropic. They look the same, they taste the same, but the pseudo-mushrooms, false mushrooms can kill you.
So, many forms of socialism, or some socialist features are edible and can be very useful for people and governments. Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia have socialist economies, but are all free democracies. France currently has a socialist prime minister and some other Western European countries had and still have socialists in power, but they are still capitalist democracies. Britain is a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch.
Nevertheless very toxic psychotropic pseudo-socialisms (Cuba, North Korea, Iran) can still kill you without any warning. For example, Libya has attempted to combine revolutionary socialism with Islam. How you can know, how you can trust to power? What type of mushrooms and coocoo's eggs are on your plate tonight?
To be continued ...
Michael,
Thank you for your provocative submission. Unfortunately, this is not the type of article that the Journal is looking to publish in the near future.
Sincerely,
A. W., Editor-in-Chief
Georgetown Journal of International Affairs?
Dear Michael,
Thank you for submitting your article on pseudo-socialism to Dissent magazine. We read it thoroughly and appreciated the thought that went into your submission. Because of the large number of submissions we receive and the space and content constraints involved in putting out a quarterly, we regret to say that we won?t be able to use it. Our lack of more specific comment reflects on our own limited staff and time, not on the quality of the manuscript. We wish you the best in placing it elsewhere.
Sincerely,
The Editors
Dear Mr. Batiukov:
We have completed our review of your manuscript entitled "Pseudo-Socialism," and decided against publication. The Quarterly is able to accept less than one in ten manuscripts submitted and, unfortunately, we must reject a number that would be significant contributions to the human rights literature. We appreciate your giving us an opportunity to consider your manuscript and hope that we may have the benefit of future submissions from you.
Sincerely,
B. B. L., Human Rights Quarterly
Editors note: English is the author's second language. Although his essay is entirely readable, there is a syntactical style to it that I chose to leave in rather than edit. When you read Michael's essay, you hear his Russian accent clearly. I think it enhances the experience, I hope it will for you.
C. S., Editor-in-Chief , ?Newtopia Magazine?
This essay is dedicated to the Lost Generations of the Soviet Youth.
"...so you think you can tell
heaven from hell,
blue skies from pain...
Do you think you can tell?" -Pink Floyd, "Wish You Were Here"
The idea to write an essay about pseudo-socialism was born in January 1992 when I found out about the price of Moscow - New York air flight ticket. It was 186,945.00 roubles, the equivalent of 160 my monthly salaries, or 14 years of nutrition with spiritual food only.
Why? Why I have to live like a slave at the end of the XX century? Am I a slave? And what about most of the people around me. Why they live in this serfdom and like it? Or do they? What if they never had any other choice? What if they never had any kind of freedom of choice? Is it their fault to be born in the closed system? System with no choices and alternatives whatsoever. Unique system where it is normal to choose just one from just one. This is all I have got. Plenty, isn't it?
At that period of time everywhere in newspapers, and books, and magazines I could read: "Communism in Eastern Europe and the USSR has failed because ... communists did not understand the basic nature of a man, ... communists mistrusted the power of the free market, ... communists ignored incentives, democratic elections, human rights, private property, the profit-and-loss system, and market prices." and so on and so forth.
So, what is by the way "communism"? What does this word mean? I opened Webster's Encyclopedia: "communism - (French commun "common, general")- socialism imposed by revolution, based on the theories of the political philosophers Marx and Engels, emphasizing common ownership of the means of production and a planned economy.
Politically, it seeks to overthrow of capitalism through a proletarian revolution. The first communist state was the USSR after the revolution of 1917."
Hm, "communism" means "socialism" is just the same as "table" means "chair". They are different. Moreover, not one but two revolutions (in February and in October) happened in Russia in 1917. Also, the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) was formed in 1922 (not in 1917). Besides, in 1917 only 3% of the whole population of Russia were proletariat (workers).
Let's look further. So, what is "socialism"? What does this word mean? "Socialism - movement aiming to establish a classless society by substituting public for private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange."
Hold on. Is capitalism also a movement? "Capitalism - an economic system in which the principal means of production, distribution and exchange are in private (individual or corporate) hands and competitively operated for profit."
How come? Capitalism is an economic system but socialism is just a movement? Probably, socialism is an economic system also? What if it is a system where classes existed? What if it is a system in which the principal means of production, distribution and exchange were in private property of a new class? And operated for the profit of this class non-competitively? And the name of this class was partocracy - party aristocracy and bureaucracy? Communist partocracy? In this case it is impossible to call this system "socialism". Definitely this system should have the other name because it has totally different features behind its real meaning. Today I am convinced that the real name of this system should be "pseudo-socialism", never "socialism" or "communism".
Even Frederick Engels mentioned cautiously somewhere in the book "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific": "The separation of society into an exploiting and an exploited class, a ruling and an oppressed class, was the necessary consequences of the deficient and restricted development of production in former times. So long as the total social labor only yields a produce which but slightly exceeds that barely necessary for the existence of all; so long, therefore, as labor engages all or almost all the time of the great majority of the members of society - so long, of necessity, this society is divided into classes. Side by side with the great majority, exclusively bond slaves to labor, arises a class freed from directly productive labor, which looks after the general affairs of society: the direction of labor, State business, law, science, art, etc. It is, therefore, the law of division of labor that lies at the basis of the division into classes. But this does not prevent this division into classes from being carried out by means of violence and robbery, trickery and fraud. It does not prevent the ruling class, once having the upper hand, from consolidating its power at the expense of the working-class, from turning its social leadership into an intensified exploitation of the masses." Bravo Frederick!
As Larry Gambone once mentioned in The Fallacy of Labels ( July 30, 2003):
"Socialists, including Marx and Engels, had long warned of a pseudo-socialism arising and displacing the genuine article, a kind of coocoo's egg laid in the Socialist nest."
Nowadays it is very interesting to watch how such a nice theoretical utopian fairy tale was totally ruined along the way of its practical incarnation. It is very intriguing to see how theoretical socialism (communism) became pseudo-socialism in practice.
What "socialism" means is still an open question in the political and academic world. Usually politicians use the US definition of socialism and it is a synonym to "dictatorship" and "totalitarianism". In the academic world "socialism" usually means "state control of the economy". But today there many countries in which there are some socialist features used and they are nor dictatorships nor totalitarian and do not have too much state control of the economy.
Some would say that the US has become socialist because workers in this country have 40-hour work week and a minimum wage. Most of the workers have some medical and dental benefits paid by their companies or business owners. Also all workers are guaranteed to have Social Security retirement income. We accept those things today as normal political issues, but in reality, they're all from the socialist agenda, and things which were once considered too radical for a capitalist democracy. World has changed dramatically since 1917. Maybe it is time to find a new definition for socialism? Especially if real idealistic socialism did not exist at all.
Of course, we all know that mushrooms are valued as good food and certain species are considered delicacies. Many species of mushrooms are edible, but proper identification is essential to avoid illness and even death by toxic mushrooms. Some of them can be very poisonous and psychotropic. They look the same, they taste the same, but the pseudo-mushrooms, false mushrooms can kill you.
So, many forms of socialism, or some socialist features are edible and can be very useful for people and governments. Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia have socialist economies, but are all free democracies. France currently has a socialist prime minister and some other Western European countries had and still have socialists in power, but they are still capitalist democracies. Britain is a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch.
Nevertheless very toxic psychotropic pseudo-socialisms (Cuba, North Korea, Iran) can still kill you without any warning. For example, Libya has attempted to combine revolutionary socialism with Islam. How you can know, how you can trust to power? What type of mushrooms and coocoo's eggs are on your plate tonight?
To be continued ...
Print
Email
