"IT'S ONLY SOCIALISM IF IT DOESN'T BLOW UP" ENDNOTES
[1]. To learn more, see the RFP paper "Democratic Socialism? Déjà Vu All Over Again."
[2]. Eugene Debs, "The Canton, Ohio, Speech [June 16, 1918]," in Eugene V. Debs Speaks, ed. Jean Y. Tussey (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1970), 271.
[3]. "1917–2017 Russia Never Was Socialist," Socialist Standard 116, no. 1349 (January 2017): 3.
[4]. Adam Buick, "Non-Market Socialism," in Life without Money: Building Fair and Sustainable Economies, ed.Anitra Nelson and Frans Timmerman (London: Pluto Press, 2011), 139.
[5]. "Hillel Ticktin: I have not met any Marxist in the Soviet Union," interview by Volodymyr Artukh and Denys Gorbach, Commons, February 2, 2022, https://commons.com.ua/en/intervyu-z-gillelem-tiktinom/.
[6]. The International Socialist Organization, "Where We Stand," https://socialistworker.org/where-we-stand.
[7]. "Castro: Latin American Nationalist," Socialist Standard 116, no 1349 (January 2017): 10.
[8]. "Socialism Has Never Been Tried," trans. M. D., Socialist Standard 95, no. 1139 (July 1999): https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1999/1990s/no-1139-july-1999/socialism-has-never-been-tried/.
[9]. Perry Sanders and Dianna Sitar, "Socialism Hasn't Failed; It Hasn't Been Tried—Yet!" New Unionist (December 1993): http://www.deleonism.org/text/nu931201.htm.
[10]. Paresh Chattopadhyay, "The Myth of Twentieth-Century Socialism and the Continuing Relevance of Karl Marx," Socialism and Democracy 24, no. 3 (November 2010): 23–45.
[11]. Among the twentieth-century nations proclaiming themselves as socialist were the following: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Cuba, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, the Socialist Republic of Romania, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Democratic Kampuchea, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the German Democratic Republic, the People's Socialist Republic of Albania, the Polish People's Republic, the Hungarian People's Republic, the People's Republic of Bulgaria, the People's Republic of the Congo, the Lao People's Democratic Republic.
[12]. Buick, "Non-Market Socialism," 140.
[13]. Nathan J. Robinson, Why You Should Be a Socialist (New York: St. Martin's, 2019), 111.
[14] Marx wrote that socialist society was to have two phases: a first following capitalism and then a second "higher phase." Both phases were socialist. The higher phase was simply the perfected version of socialism that would (in theory) come into existence when socialism had boosted production volumes to the astounding levels needed to distribute all goods for free worldwide, thereby permitting socialism to "inscribe on its banners: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, in Marx/Engels Collected Works (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1950), 2:22-3.
[15]. Marxist Student Federation, "Hasn't Socialism Been Tried and Failed?" September 12, 2018, https://marxiststudent.com/hasnt-socialism-been-tried-and-failed/.
[16]. Anthony Arnove, "The Fall of Stalinism: Ten Years On," International Socialist Review 10 (Winter 2000): https://isreview.org/issues/10/fall_of_stalinism/.
[17]. Daniel Taylor, "How Stalinism Distorted Marxism," Red Flag, September 5, 2019, https://redflag.org.au/node/6885.
[18]. Danny Katch, Socialism … Seriously: A Brief Guide to Human Liberation (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2015), 121.
[19]. Dmitri Volkogonov, Lenin: A New Biography, trans. Harold Shukman (New York: The Free Press, 1994), 238–39. NEW
[20]. For example, Lenin called explicitly for Russian religious leaders to be "shot on the spot." Over 14,000 were slain. Dmitri Volkogonov, Lenin: A New Biography, trans. Harold Shukman (New York: The Free Press, 1994), 379; Victor Sebestyen, Lenin the Dictator (New York: Pantheon Books, 2017), 475.
[21]. Vladimir Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Full collected writings] (1958), 41:236, quoted in Volkogonov, Lenin, 237.
[22]. Vladimir Lenin, "How to Organize Competition," in Lenin: Collected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1973–78), 26:414.
[23]. Lenin, "How to Organize Competition," 414.
[24]. Leon Trotsky, Dictatorship vs. Democracy: A Reply to Karl Kautsky (New York: Workers Party of America, 1922), 139.
[25]. Trotsky, Dictatorship vs. Democracy, 169.
[26]. For example, American socialist Alex Bittelman authored Trotsky the Traitor (New York: Workers Library Publishers, 1937). It opens: "Lenin called Trotsky Judas—and cautioned the people repeatedly to beware of him. Today Trotsky and his agents stand exposed before the whole world. … It is incredible, some people say, that Trotsky and his agents should have gone so far. Conspiring with Hitler and Japan to dismember the Soviet Union, to destroy its socialist system" (1). Bittelman also writes: "Trotskyism, like its ally, fascism, is a menace to the world. It is a menace to its peace, its progress, its democracy" (30).
[27]. The compulsory duty to give one's time and talents to society has underpinned socialist thinking from its founding. For example, one of the earliest socialist philosophical works is The Code of Nature, which was published anonymously but is generally credited to Étienne-Gabriel Morelly. In a section subtitled "Sacred and Fundamental Laws that would tear out the roots of vice and of all the evils of a society," Morelly proposes the requirement that "Every citizen will make his contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined." Selections from Code of Nature in Socialist Thought : A Documentary History ed. Albert Fried and Robert Sanders, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), 20.
[28]. Louis Blanc, La Historie de la Révolution de 1848 (Paris: C. Marpon, 1880), 1:148.
[29]. Fidel Castro, "Castro Speaks to Education Conference [December 24, 1991]," Castro Speech Database, http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/castro/db/1991/19911224.html. Emphasis added.
[30]. "Any person who neglects or refuses to pay this debt [to socialist society] by contributing, according to his ability, to satisfying the needs of the present or future generations is held to be a thief, and will be dealt with as such." Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb, Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation, 3rd ed. (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1942), 911.
[31]. Fidel Castro, "CDR Rally [September 29, 1979]," Castro Speech Database, http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/castro/db/1970/19700929-1.html
[32]. American socialist leader Daniel De Leon explains that, from the perspective of socialism, the methods today's craftspeople employ amounts to "labor-power wasted" and are "socially unnecessary." He states: "The excess of labor-power, expended upon the yard of cloth turned out by the old appliances, is labor-power wasted. It is labor power wasted because it was socially unnecessary. It was socially unnecessary because society had evolved the superior appliances and methods." Daniel De Leon, Fifteen Questions about Socialism (New York, Socialist Labor Party, 1914), 39-40.
[33]. In his recent book, The Return of Nature: Socialism and Ecology (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2020), noted ecosocialist John Bellamy Foster cites Bukharin dozens of times, portraying him as a proto-ecosocialist.
[34]. Nikolai Bukharin, quoted in Morris Hillquit, From Marx to Lenin (New York: The Hanford Press, 1921), 39.
[35]. The axiom "from each according to their ability" remains the socialist standard, appearing time and again today, as three examples illustrate. First, the Democratic Socialists of America's 2017 annual convention used signage with famous socialists sayings, including "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." David Weigel, "The Socialist Movement Is Turning Younger and Turning into a Left-Wing Force," Chicago Tribune, August 6, 2017, https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-socialist-movement-bernie-sanders-20170806-story.html. Second, the Socialist Students Society of Cardiff University proclaims in its organizational overview: "As socialists we believe that a different kind of society is possible in which the principle of 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need' (Karl Marx) is realized." "Socialist Students Society," Cardiff University Students Union, accessed February 15, 2021, https://www.cardiffstudents.com/activities/society/socialiststudents/). Third, Binay Sakar, in a 2019 article, cites "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" as the goal of democratic socialism. Binay Sakar, "Road-Map to Socialism—Democracy Is the Road to Socialism," Countercurrents.org, July 6, 2019, https://countercurrents.org/2019/07/road-map-to-socialism-democracy-is-the-road-to-socialism/.
[36]. "[Creating socialism requires] drastic measures to eliminate the parasites." Ernesto "Che" Guevara, "Contra El Burocratismo [February 1963]," in Obra revolucionaria (Mexico City: Ediciones ERA, 1971), 548.
[37]. "Now these useless workers, socialism will suppress them; it will make them useful. Instead of being parasites they will become producers." Lucien Deslinières, Entretiens Socialistes (Paris: Choisy Le Roi, 1901), 35–36. Author's translation. "This regime [socialism] will spare human labor, the waste of which is immoral. This savings will be achieved by several methods, including the following three: Competition will be suppressed. … Idleness will be suppressed. … Production will be centralized as much as possible." Pierre Deloire [Charles Peguy], "De La Cite Socialiste," Le Revue Socialiste 25, no. 1 (1897): 187–88. "By the centralization of services, we will suppress the small workshops where three or four workers labor strenuously without producing a hundredth of what they could produce in a large social factory." Paul Argpriadès, Almanach de la question sociale (Paris: L'administration de la question sociale, 1891), 37.
[38]. "The altered conditions of social life [in socialist society] will also thoroughly revolutionize our literature. The theological literature … will be eliminated, together with the judicial literature. For the one there will be no more interest, and for the other no need. The products that have reference to the struggles over institutions of the state, will also be eliminated, because these institutions will no longer exist. They will assume the character of historical studies. The numerous literary products of a highly superficial nature, which are just a proof of bad taste and sometimes are made possible only by a sacrifice of the author's pride, will be dropped. Even from the present point of view, we may say that four-fifths of all literary products might disappear from the market without a loss to one single interest of civilization, so great is the mass of superficial or harmful products and obvious trash on the field of literature." August Bebel, Woman and Socialism, trans. Meta L. Stern, (New York: Socialist Literature Company, 1910), 453. The idea of suppressing "superficial or harmful and obvious trash" literature is by no means unique to Bebel. It was a featured aspect of noted socialist Etienne Cabet's novel describing a perfected socialist society, Voyage to Icarie. Lenin purged half of the books in Russian public libraries (see the RFP paper "Vladimir Lenin, Ecosocialist?").
[39]. "The first step to be taken is to abolish a class of men privileged to shirk their duties as men." William Morris, Useful Work versus Useless Toil (London: The Socialist League, 1886), 27. "[Socialism] must be based on the abolition of 'private labor.'" Kohei Saito, Karl Marx's Ecosocialism: Capitalism, Nature, and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy (New York: Monthly Review, 2017), conclusion. Kindle.
[40]. Karl Kautsky was nicknamed "the Pope of Marxism" for being the leading interpreter of Marx's thought after Marx and Engels died. "The Pope" channels the socialist messiah Marx when he states that "one of the strong points" of socialism is that it creates the possibility of "wiping out in the quickest possible manner [by using government force] the ruins of the outgrown means and methods of production." Karl Kautsky, The Social Revolution, trans. A. M. Simons and May Woods Simons (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr, 1902), 168.
[41]. To learn the details about socialism's fascist-like fixation with alleged "parasites" and their suppression, see the RFP paper "The Socialist Obsession" at parasiteobsessed.org. For a specific look at what socialism says about suppressing those deemed slackers, see the RFP paper "Why Socialism Says Slacking Is 'Theft'" at slackingistheft.org.
[42]. Socialism has long called for the suppression of allegedly "socially useless" work. For example, William Morris calls for "all useless work being abolished" (William Morris, "Art and Labour," in The Unpublished Lectures of William Morris, ed. Eugene D. Lemire [Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1969], 115). Also true to socialist thought, Morris wrote that when socialism began, "useless occupations would be got rid of speedily" (William Morris, "An Unpublished Lecture of William Morris," ed. Paul Meier, International Review of Social History 16, no. 2 [1971]: 23.) Making an untold number of jobs illegal and forcing those who currently hold these jobs to perform work approved as "useful" remains a central tenet of socialism today. For example, Fred Magdoff asserts that "as great as half of the labor force" perform socially useless tasks and that a socialist society would make these workers perform tasks that have the blessings of socialists instead. Fred Magdoff, "An Ecologically Sound and Just Economy," Monthly Review 6, no. 4 (September 2014): https://monthlyreview.org/2014/09/01/an-ecologically-sound-and-socially-just-economy/. Emphasis added.
[43]. Just as socialist theory calls for the suppression of allegedly useless work, so too it calls for the suppression of all "socially useless" products. Unsurprisingly, this concept is found in the thinking of Karl Marx. Marx writes that in socialist society "the time of production devoted to different articles will be determined by the degree of their social utility" (Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy [Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1956], 63). In other words, if a product is deemed to not be socially useful, it will be permitted zero production time. William Morris similarly explains that in socialist society "useless goods" will be suppressed: "Manufacture of useless goods, whether harmful luxuries for the rich or disgraceful makeshifts for the poor, having come to an end…" (William Morris, A Factory as It Might Be,Justice [April-May 1884], reproduced in Informal Education Archives, www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/william_morris_a_factory_as_it_might_be.htm). The plan of present-day socialists remains the same. For example, Michael Löwy writes, "Many products in contemporary society are socially useless" (Michael Löwy, "Ecosocialism: A Vital Synthesis," Climate and Capitalism, December 16, 2020, https://climateandcapitalism.com/2020/12/16/ecosocialism-a-vital-synthesis/). Löwy says that an ecosocialist society would determine which needs are "authentic" ones. Socialist society would only produce goods and services required to fulfill needs approved as authentic. The implication is that there are other needs that socialism considers inauthentic. Löwy labels these "artificial or counterproductive needs." Production of these many products that socialists deem "socially useless" because they fill "artificial or counterproductive needs" would become illegal.
[44]. Marx called for our "private labor" rights to be eliminated and for socialist society to be based on "social labor," which he also referred to as "directly social labor." Social labor is our labor under society's direct control instead of under our individual control. Marx explains that in socialist society, "the labour of the individual is posited from the outset as social labor." In other words, in socialist society, your labor would be considered to be society's labor, not your individual labor. In a socialist society, your work would be treated as society's property "from the outset." You would never own it. Karl Marx, Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, trans. Martin Nicolaus (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1973), 172. Today's socialists continue to call for the suppression of our private labor rights. For example, in 2017, Kohei Saito wrote that socialism "must be based on the abolition of 'private labor.'" Saito, Karl Marx's Ecosocialism, conclusion. To learn more about socialism's plan to eliminate our private labor rights, see the RFP paper, "A 'Defect' of Liberalism" at redflagspress.org/defect.
[45]. The elimination of all private enterprise and our private property rights that make private enterprise possible has been a socialist goal from the philosophy's earliest days. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this a central concept of their philosophy. For example, Engels describes society "seizing" control of all private enterprise, thereby yielding a situation in which there is no production of commodities—that is, no goods that would be bought and sold: "With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with …. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organization." Friedrich Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, trans. Edward Averling (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1892), 81. The plan for the elimination of private enterprise remains a staple aspect of socialism today, including as part of today's so-called "ecosocialism." For example, Chris Williams writes that socialism means that private property "is abolished" (Chris Williams, Ecology and Socialism [Chicago: Haymarket, 2010], 216). A society without private property is, by definition, a society without private enterprise. Williams also describes socialist society as based on "production for use" and not "production for profit" (226). This is a concept that has been at the heart of socialism for 150 years, and it reflects the socialist plan to eliminate private enterprise, which requires profit to function. Michael Löwy similarly writes that ecosocialism means "the collective appropriation of the means of production." This phrase has been a stock way for socialists to describe the elimination of private enterprise for well over a century. Michael Löwy, "The Ethics of Ecosocialism," The New Socialist 62 [Fall 2007]: 8.
[46]. In the previous section, we've noted that celebrated socialist Nikolai Bukharin wrote, "All small and futile enterprises must die out." This is by no means a position unique to Bukharin but rather reflects socialism's overall bias against small-scale production. Another example of this thinking is found in the writing of noted socialist Laurence Gronlund, who, like Bukharin, is sold as a proto-ecosocialist today (see the RFP paper "Vladimir Lenin, Ecosocialist?"). Gronlund writes: "Every large factory which arises on the ruin of the shops of the small artisans we consider an advance in civilization." Laurence Gronlund, The Cooperative Commonwealth: An Exposition of Modern Socialism (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1884), 109.
[47] The socialist belief that their system could dramatically boost production, yielding a world in which all goods could be distributed for free, resulted in large part from their belief that a substantial percentage of work in capitalist society was "useless" work that could be made illegal. Those who had worked allegedly useless jobs would be forced to perform work approved as useful, thereby dramatically increasing production of needed goods. One example of this thinking from noted socialist Laurence Gronlund: "By putting all our parasites and superfluous workers where they can work productively … the stock of the good things of this life will thereby be very much enlarged, perhaps doubled." Gronlund, Cooperative Commonwealth, 115.
[48] A central socialist claim (one that has never panned out in the real world) is that socialism would result in a dramatic reduction of the workday. This was to be a byproduct of socialism suppressing "useless" work and forcing all to perform work approved by those running society. This claim is misleading at best, since socialism has concrete plans for how any saved work hours would be used: mandatory group meetings (to learn more, see the RFP paper "Four Hours Every Workday" at redflagspress.org/fourhours).
Here are two examples of celebrated socialist William Morris describing how, by getting rid of allegedly wasted work, socialism would result in reduced work hours:
"We are going to get rid of all non-workers, and busy-idle people; so that the working time of each member of our factory will be very short." William Morris, "Work in a Factory as It Might Be II," in Political Writings: Contributions to Justice and Commonweal 1883–1890, ed. Nicolas Salmon (Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 1994), 40.
"Under conditions where all produced and no work was wasted, not only would everyone work with the certain hope of gaining a due share of wealth by his work, but also he could not miss his due share of rest." William Morris, "Useful Work versus Useless Toil," in Signs of Change: Seven Lectures Delivered on Various Occasions (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1896), 154.
[49] Fidel Castro, "Castro Addresses PURS Meeting [February 23, 1963]," Castro Speech Database, http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/castro/db/1963/19630223.html.
[50] Today's socialists praise Vladimir Lenin, despite his being the ruthless dictator who founded the USSR's secret police and concentration camps. For example, celebrated ecosocialist James Bellamy Foster applauds Lenin in numerous books and articles, writing (disingenuously) that Lenin "strongly embraced ecological values," among other such claims. (John Bellamy Foster, "Late Soviet Ecology," Monthly Review 67, no. 2 [2015]: https://monthlyreview.org/2015/06/01/late-soviet-ecology-and-the-planetary-crisis/.)" To understand how selling Lenin reveals the authoritarianism that today's socialists condone, see the RFP paper "Vladimir Lenin, Ecosocialist?"
[51] Harrington even dedicated his book The Twilight of Capitalism to "democratic socialist—Karl Marx." (Michael Harrington, The Twilight of Capitalism [New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976], v.) For additional examples of Harrington citing both Marx and Engels as "democratic socialists," see the RFP paper "Karl Marx: 'Democratic Socialist.'"
[52] Marx repeatedly denigrated our liberal rights—for example, calling them "rubbish" and "nonsense" (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 23). See the RFP paper "Our 'So-Called' Rights."
[53] Kohei Saito, "Karl Marx's Idea of Ecosocialism in the 21st First Century," in Martin Empson, ed., System Change Not Climate Change: A Revolutionary Response to Environmental Crisis (London: Bookmark Publications, 2019), 68.
[54] Marx expected socialism to radically outproduce capitalism, resulting in a world of such overflowing abundance that all needed goods could be taken for free forever by the world's population. As this world of superabundance would require a constant oversupply of needed goods, Marx wrote of socialism meaning a society of "constant over-production." (Karl Marx, Capital, trans. Ben Fowkes and David Fernbach, 3 vols.[London: Penguin Classics, 1978–1981], 2:256–57.) This is an absurdly unsustainable concept, one that is as far from ecologically sound as it's possible to imagine. See the RFP paper "The Secret Sauce of Socialism."
[55] Marx's socialism is based on the eradication not simply of capitalism but of liberalism, the political system founded on individual rights, of which capitalism is the economic expression. Marx attacked individual rights—the very foundation of liberalism—as "rubbish," "so-called rights," and the like. (See the RFP paper "Our 'So-Called' Rights.")
Marx supported socialism's foundation on the compulsory duty of "from each according to their ability." The very starting point of liberalism is the rejection of this kind of onerous duty, which turns our time and talents into something others have the power to control. (See the RFP paper "The Ripple Effects of Socialist Duty.")
Marx called for the elimination of not only liberal property rights but also our individual right to control the use of our time, which he called our "private labor" rights. (See in the RFP paper "A 'Defect' Of Liberalism.")
[56] Marx called for the elimination of all private enterprise and for society to have total control of "the means of production." Here, noted Marxist thinkers Nikolai Bukharin and Yevgeni Preobraschensky describe Marx's view of socialism (which Marx interchangeably called "communism"; see the RFP paper "Socialism? Communism? What's the Difference?"): "The basis of the Communist form of society is common ownership of the means of production and distribution of wealth—that is, the ownership and control by society of machinery, locomotives, steamships, factories, warehouses, granaries, mines, telegraphs and telephones, land, etc. Neither one capitalist, nor a league of capitalists, will have the right to dispose of the means of life. That right will belong to society as a whole—that is to say, not merely to one class, but to all those who make up society. … There will be no competition amongst captains of industry, because all factories, mines, and other means of production will be part of a great system of people's workshops which will comprise the whole of society." Nikolai Bukharin and Yevgeni Preobraschensky, A. B. C. of Communism, trans. Patrick Lavin (Detroit: Marxian Educational Society, 1921), 56.
[57] See n. 44.
[58] By Marx's definition, a socialist society is one that has eliminated the buying and selling of goods, and money as well. Bukrharin and Preobraschensky describe this aspect of Marx's vision of socialism: "The Communist mode of production, therefore, is not production for the market, but for the needs of the community. Each individual does not produce for himself, however, but the whole gigantic association for all. Consequently, there are no commodities, but simply goods. These goods are not exchanged against one another; they are neither bought nor sold. They are simply taken to the communal stores, and there given to whomsoever requires them. Under this system money is not necessary." Bukharin and Preobraschensky, A. B. C. of Communism, 57–58.
[59] Agnes Heller, The Theory of Needs in Marx (London: Allison & Busby, 1974), 108.
[60] Marx wrote repeatedly about his desire for children to perform "productive labor" for socialist society as a key part of their school day, nicknaming this idea "the education of the future." Today's socialists hide Marx's child labor as "education" plans. For example, even a socialist-authored book with the very title Marx and Education mentions not one word about this favorite idea of Marx's. See the RFP paper "Karl Marx's 'Education of the Future.'"
[61] Noted Marxist thinker G. A. Cohen lists two aspects of Marx's thinking that indicate Marx "must banish" craft from socialist society. (G. A. Cohen, "Marx's Dialectic of Labor," Philosophy and Public Affairs 3,no. 3 [Spring 1974]: 255–56.) For the full details regarding socialism's rejection of craftwork, see the RFP paper "Why Socialism Says Craftwork Is 'Idiocy.'"