What went wrong in Animal Farm?

[Edric O]

Now I think I owe gunner154 a few answers...

Really nice debate going on there ever since the don't know how many weeks ago I last posted this. Anyways, Ace and EdricO have been pulling me to their sides with each of their posts, so now I'm a little confused.

I'm sure both of us would gladly have another debate to try to dispel your confusion. :)

Last time, you talked about "common knowledge" that setting up communism in an undeveloped country made up of mostly uneducated people would need the help of a more developed communist country. Why is this so?

I think I mentioned this fact in relation to socialism, though it applies to communism as well - and capitalism, too.

Simply put, some economic systems (capitalism, socialism, communism) require a certain basic economic infrastructure in order to function. You can't have capitalism if there is no industry and your entire country is made up of peasants, for example. Even if you were to establish a capitalist system under these conditions, it would quickly break down and turn into something else (something resembling feudalism). The same applies to socialism and communism - you need an industrialized country (and preferably one with intensive rather than extensive economic development) in order to successfully implement these systems. You can establish them in an underdeveloped (i.e. non-industrialized) country as well, but they won't last long unless the country's economy starts developing FAST. And in order to achieve such rapid development, you need outside help... or you need to pull off an economic miracle.

As for having an educated population, that is necessary for democracy (and democracy, in turn, is necessary for socialism and communism). Note that I don't mean "education" in the sense of things you learn at school. I mean "education" in the sense of knowing your rights, knowing how democracy works, knowing how to participate in it, and, most importantly, knowing how to recognize propaganda and not believe everything you're told.

Also, on this board you later posted that the people are intelligent enough, however, to start a revolution of their own. So do they still need help from another communist country then?

Of course people are intelligent enough to start a revolution of their own. As I explained above, the problem in underdeveloped countries is not people's intelligence, but economic infrastructure and education (education is not necessarily the same as intelligence - not everyone can be a rocket scientist, but anyone can learn how to vote).

If Singapore wanted to establish socialism today, it wouldn't need any other country's help. The same applies to most of Europe, North America, Australia, some of East Asia and some of Latin America. Countries in those parts of the world are developed enough to move on to socialism.

On the other hand, if a country like, for example, the Congo wanted to establish socialism, it would need A LOT of outside help - and even then it would still be difficult.

[nemafakei]

"On the other hand, if a country like, for example, the Congo wanted to establish socialism, it would need A LOT of outside help - and even then it would still be difficult"

The problem, of course, being that a socialist world would benefit the Congo more than it would Singapore. So the people who might most support it are the least able to effect it.

Which is one reason why socialism and communism have yet to really take place.

[Edric O]

The problem, of course, being that a socialist world would benefit the Congo more than it would Singapore. So the people who might most support it are the least able to effect it.

Which is one reason why socialism and communism have yet to really take place.

That is correct. Socialism would benefit any country, but, naturally, it would make the biggest difference in the poorest countries. Therefore, poor countries typically have a higher level of support for socialism than rich countries. But in poor countries it would be more difficult to establish socialism than in rich ones. This, as you pointed out, is a problem.

The only way to solve this problem is to have close collaboration between socialists in many different countries. We need to work together, in both rich and poor countries, if we are to succeed. Hence slogans like "workers of all countries, unite!".

[danielsh]

If the Soviet Union had been a proper, working democracy, Stalin would have been stopped in his tracks.

I apologize in advance if you've already addressed this question, comrade, but what's your take on the proletariat's attraction to bourgeois, even dictatorial, values?  I know you mentioned the Weimar Republic (though I don't know the context; no time to read the tread now), which seems to be a fairly clear example of the revolutionary workers accepting a fascist leader.  The Second International's weakness aside, why does that happen?  The same thing occurred, by my understanding, with Stalin and even in the American Revolution: proletarians developed an attraction to bourgeois leaders who ignored them and bourgeois philosophies that harmed them.  Why?

(My apologies for the poorly-written post.  I'm running out the door.)

[Edric O]

First of all - welcome back, comrade! :)

I apologize in advance if you've already addressed this question, comrade, but what's your take on the proletariat's attraction to bourgeois, even dictatorial, values?

[danielsh]

First of all - welcome back, comrade! :)

Thank you :).  Among other things, I took a spiritual journey to Marxist Mecca... sorta.  (Hey, some of that writing is a lot like a huge, impenetrable block.)

Well, if all human beings acted rationally all the time, then all history would have been entirely different. However, the fact is that humans do not always act rationally, and they sometimes hurt themselves or other human beings for no serious reason (usually under the influence of some mistaken or absurd belief - such as anti-semitism in the case of the Holocaust, for example). Furthermore, ideas and values are often passed from generation to generation. If people have been taught to be servants of a ruling class for the past 5000 years, it isn't easy to change that habit. Proletarians are sometimes attracted to bourgeois or even strongly reactionary leaders (such as the fascists, for example), because these leaders appeal to "the good old days" - to old traditions and habits. Inevitably, when faced with a choice between "the good old days" and the promise of new and better days, some people will choose the good old days (even if they weren't so good after all).

That makes reasonable sense to me.  I had been reading some modern Western Marxists who were grappling with the issue, so I was curious to hear your opinion.  Thanks!