Bring back the USSR !! ... in the form it was meant to be..

Easier said than done.

Communism has been cast to the dust heap of history (to use a famous quote used by Trotsky against Mensheviks) , a state which I believe is wholly undeserved for such a beautiful ideal.

I am a person who believe that all which had happened in the past was meant to happen that way (a pragmatic approach I believe, as we cannot change the past anyway..) to serve as a lesson for the future generation. In that way, the past failures of Communist ideology should serve as an eye-opener to all those who genuinely wish to see a new Red Dawn.

There are many who point out that it is obvious that Communism is unworkable, as it has failed wherever it was implemented. Aside from the question whether the system that was implemented had any semblance to Communist ideology, the question is whether the models implemented in various countries were distinct models. Forget what the Chinese says about "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" (more about this Chinese joke later..), to an astute observer it is evident that only one model of "Communism" was ever attempted: the Soviet model. Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Cambodia, Laos.. all implemented minor variations of the Soviet blue-print. Most of these "variations" were insignificant as the organizational structure of the systems remained same across nations. The following are a few of the aspects that were common for all these systems:

1. All of them have a great, all-powerful Communist Party. Out of respect for the Party, people will ensure that bourgeois parties do not function in the country.
   
2. The Communist Party have millions of dedicated members.
   
3. But 99% of these "millions" are ignorant and inexperienced in political and economic affairs. So, they only have to submit before the infinite wisdom of the Party leadership. The Party leadership will ensure their well-being.
   
4. The Communist Party follows a top-to-bottom flow of power, to ensure that those in the leadership could simply give up power from above and they will fall straight down to the masses. This much more easier and humane than a bottom-to-top structure where people needs to create power and push it to the top.
   
5. All decisions are taken by the wise central leadership of the Party (members of the Politburo and the Central Committee), and implemented by the dedicated local Party bosses.
6. The rest of the 99% needn't involve themselves in the functioning of the Party. All they have to do is to obey their superiors, repeat what they say, and do as they are told to do. No questions needs to be asked, since they cannot comprehend the grand schemes emanating out of the infinite wisdom of the Party leadership.
7. The Party have Gods whose holy bodies are preserved at Mausoleums, and whose mighty statues tower over the populace, to reassure the people that they are a lucky-lot unlike those wretched souls in the West who were not gifted with such visionary celestial beings.
8. The Party nominated members to the various legislative and judicial bodies, and protected the population by ensuring the reactionary, counter-revolutionary, bourgeois elements do not participate in elections.
9. The Party took upon itself the all-important and tedious task of framing policies out of compassion for the legislators and deputies. The legislative bodies merely had the duty of rubber-stamping them.
10. The Party had an obligation to keep the people well-informed of local and world affairs. So, they ran news agencies that informed people of how the glorious revolution is progressing well, how they have invented the wheel once again, and how Americans and West Europeans were living like dogs. To keep the people out of the danger of misinformation, they outlawed all bourgeois presses and news agencies.
11. The Party employed a secret police whose sole purpose was to defend the people from counter-revolutionaries among them. They also had the duty of "curing" people of the bourgeois diseases like doubt, scepticism and sanity.
12. The Party always may have minor ideological differences among his leaders. As a result, a respected leader may become counter-revolutionary all of a sudden, and will be consequently expelled from the Party. If he tries to sabotage the revolution again, he might be jailed or executed, out of concern for the people's safety and well-being.
13. The Party informs people that what they are having is the ultimate form of democracy. They can have what they want as long as the interest of the people coincides with those of the leadership. (Of course, leadership is always right. And what they say is for the larger benefits of the population.)
    

I would really like to meet and have one or two words with the moron who says that this system is some form of Socialism.

So, the question is : Were there a host of reasons why Communism failed? Or, was it just one subtle, root fault that spawned all others?

I tend to think the case is the latter. Then what is this "Mother of all faults". Earlier I thought it was "Dogmatism". The inability to the Party to accommodate views that were in variance with its official standpoints. This made the Party leadership feel that such dissenting voices were ruining the unity of the Party, resulting in suppression of all kinds of dissent. These effectively put to an end all kinds of creative , intellectual thoughts and discussions that was the life-blood of the Party of toiling masses. The Party leadership cracked down on all those who did not appear to be supporting their policies. This led to the creation of the infamous secret police and all other unfortunate developments that discredited the idea of Communism in the eyes of the sane. Maybe the Party leadership resorted to these initially with good intent: push forward much needed reforms without delay, defend against the attack of the imperialists and capitalists. However, in doing so, they created the necessary structures for a despotic regime to thrive. Communism's fate was sealed then and there. All that was needed then was a Stalin to come to power and pervert these structures to serve his will.

Reminds one of Star Wars, right? The cunning Chancellor Palpatine (Darth Sidious, a Sith lord) plotting secret wars against the Republic, so that the Senate will give him emergency powers to create Clone warriors that will take orders without question. He later destroys the Jedi order and the Republic using these same structures and authority that the Senate granted him to deal with the crisis. Though I think George Lucas did a clumsy job in creating the Star Wars, I really liked such underlying themes in the movie series. I really liked that part where the head-strong Jedi Anakin Skywalker gets seduced by the Dark side of the force (to save the life of his wife), becoming a Sith himself (Darth Vader) and finally turning back to the Good side before his death, due to the efforts of his son and Jedi Luke Skywalker.

Anyway, we are not discussing Star Wars here. So, "Dogmatism" seemed to be the fault I was searching for. That would have meant that there was no fault with the theory of Leninism at all. It was problem with implementation, not theory. Thats what we hear everyday, right? There are no problems with religious texts, only problems with those who interpret and implement them. But I doubt that. I believe that, almost always, it is some problem with theory that leads to disaster in implementation. So, was there another root fault behind even Dogmatism? A fault that lies in the realm of theory, not practice? Maybe so.

I believe that Leninism went wrong in one critical point where, probably, Luxemburgism was more correct : "Vanguardism". (Mind you, there is one thing I learned about Communism with awe. Communist theory is probably more complex than this entire Universe! As a result, studying the different opposing strains in Communism and Socialism could land you in a lunatic asylum.) So, what is vanguardism? Vanguardism is an idea that stresses the importance of a Party or Organization to lead the masses in a struggle. In the Communist world, this signifies the Leninist tendency in Communism. From what I understand, these are some of the assumptions of Leninism:

1. The masses are ignorant and inexperienced in executions of revolutions as they are toiling masses who struggle to make the ends meet. So, they are incapable of understanding the complexities of Communist philosophy. (Lenin once is reported to have commented that to educate the masses on Communism and engineer a mass revolution through them will take another 500 years!)
2. In this situation, the revolution should be executed by the Party using professional revolutionaries, on behalf of the working class. The proletariat needs to obey the leaders, as they take decisions for the larger benefit of the masses.

I will reproduce here a excerpt from the Wikipedia article on "Leninism".

In his book What is to be Done? (1903), Lenin argued that the proletariat can only achieve a successful revolutionary consciousness through the efforts of a Communist Party comprised of full-time professional revolutionaries. Lenin further believed that such a party could only achieve its aims through a form of disciplined organization known as democratic centralism, wherein Communist Party officials are elected democratically, but once they are elected, all party members must abide by their decisions.

Leninism holds that capitalism can only be overthrown by revolutionary means; that is, any attempts to reform capitalism from within, such as Fabianism and non-revolutionary forms of democratic socialism, are doomed to fail. The goal of a Leninist party is to orchestrate the overthrow of the existing government by force and seize power on behalf of the proletariat, and then implement a dictatorship of the proletariat. The party must then use the powers of government to educate the proletariat, so as to remove the various modes of false consciousness the bourgeois have instilled in them in order to make them more docile and easier to exploit economically, such as religion and nationalism.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is theoretically to be governed by a decentralized system of proletarian direct democracy, in which workers hold political power through local councils known as soviets (see soviet democracy). (In practice, the Bolsheviks banned other political organizations and removed all real political power from the soviets during the Russian Civil War that followed the October Revolution.)

On the outset, it seems to be with good intent. But how it turned out in the end is pretty obvious. This kind of Vanguardist approach (as against the insistence of mass action as envisioned by Rosa Luxemburg) is a breeding ground for dogmatism, due to absence of an effective correcting force. Such a correcting mechanism is the advantage of a democratic structure (though in a bourgeois democracy, it is impotent before the might of brute money power). No mortal can chart the course of revolution. There are always unforseen factors, things which we earlier brushed aside as insignificant become all too important. In these situations, our earlier assumptions could become null and void. In short, rather than making prophetic statements about how the revolution is going to dawn on us, or creating a despotic (even if "enlightened") structure to bring this vision to reality, a truly grass-root democratic structure with adequate mechanisms for checks and balances, that is capable of dealing with any kind of unforseen hurdles is what is needed.

This might give the impression that I propose of doing away with the Communist Party altogether. Never. The revolution needs a direction, which can be provided only by an influential, democratic, proletarian organization. A sort of think-tank. A cauldron where ideas meet and mix. A forum of intellectual debates and discussions. A council which discuss the progress of the revolution, the challenges it faces, the mistakes that have been made, propose corrective measures to rectify them, and provide a general direction for future action. The influence of this council is solely due to the respect the masses give to its purpose and sanctity. Those deputed by the people to handle administrative duties of the country will heed the proposals and opinions of such an organization, out of respect and not compulsion. In other words, the role of this council is purely on counsel. Anything more than this is disaster. Anything less than this is impotent.

So, how can we bring back the USSR? Should we take the red flags and lead a peaceful rally calling for the creation of Soviets? Or take up guns and fight against imperialists? Probably, neither. Let's face it. we Socialists doesn't have a workable alternative to Capitalism, yet. Capitalism might be destructive and corrupting. But it works. It operate on the principles of demand and supply, using material profit as the incentive for production, thereby tapping human creativity. "Hey, wait a minute. Are you now trying to justify Capitalism after saying so much against it?" Nope. I was trying just to say that we need a workable alternative before shouting "Down with Capitalism" or "Down with Imperialism". "State-controlled Socialism" is not a viable option. It never works efficiently, lacks creativity and, most importantly, is NOT Socialism at all. It simply does not place the means and resources of production in the hands of the workers. An alternative could be Co-operatives in which workers have substantial control and share in the profit. But they probably have their own limitations as well. Socialism must be a more humane form of Capitalism which works on profit, but these profits are owned by the workers themselves. In short, the crucial point where Socialism differs from Capitalism would not be on whether the system works on profit motive, but on who owns the profit. From what I understand, these are the pre-requisites for a successful Socialist model :

1. Absorbs the best of Capitalism, i.e a strong incentive for human creativity, stress on quality while at the same time incorporating social responsibility. (Some might jump up at this last point saying that modern Corporate Capitalism lays emphasis on social responsibility. My answer: Its the greatest joke I have ever heard. Tell me Hitler was a compassionate human being or that Earth is flat. I'll rather believe them.)
2. The aspect of Social responsibility arises not out of philanthropy, but out of the ownership of the profit by those who deserve it, the workers themselves.
3. Emphasis on co-operation between workers rather than competition.
4. Mechanism for research and development, and for creation for new products and ventures, at least as effective as in Capitalism.
5. An enlightened working class who knows best what is good for them and their fellow beings.
   

Also, so far, the Communist movement had a fault in its approach to popularizing Communism. It portrayed Communism as some kind of paradise which we should try to achieve. But, we cannot work towards to a system simply because it imbibes a more lofty ideal. Humans are not a bunch of altruists to work selflessly for the common good. Instead, the urge to move towards Socialism should come out of necessity, the necessity to remove the current system. In short, the people should take their step towards a Socialist society not because some prophet or a Party of prophets tell them of a divine revelation or of the need to create a paradise here, but because they have no choice. Things should reach such a point where the people realize that Capitalism has gone too far; if allowed to exist any longer, Capitalism will destroy all that we have cherished.

I doubt if the destructive power of Capitalism has reached such a stage. In other words, the society is ready to work towards Socialism only if it satisfies the following two conditions:

1. Capitalism has reached its most destructive phase were it becomes an incurable cancer afflicting human society by corruption, destruction and exploitation of humans, nature and human-nature, human-human relationships.
2. A clear, workable, efficient, creative, humane, superior alternative to Capitalism exists in the form of Socialism.
3. The masses are, by and large, convinced that they have no other option, but to move towards a better life under Socialism at all costs, or live as eternally damned under Capitalism.
   

Only then, I say ONLY THEN, will Capitalism fall, once and for all......... And a beautiful Red Star of a new Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of Earth will dawn upon humankind.