An appeal to fellow Socialists

The lasting legacy of the Enlightenment is its Libertarian value system. That being, people are equal under the law, and have inalienable, natural rights as human beings, and are free to be self-determined individuals. This is an attractive, and morally defensible belief to hold, and is expressed throughout numerous political ideologies ranging to both extremes of the political spectrum in one fashion or the other. Many Socialists, despite Right Wing propaganda, hold these values dear, and quite rightly argue that Socialism, as a political philosophy, is built on them. Working people are unable to be self-determined, free human beings so long as they are required to sell their labor to Capital in order to survive. This is a core principle of Socialism.

Capitalism creates this system of power, where the owners of society enforce this relation, and Socialists of all kinds are right to reject it. Where I think this begins to be a problem, and becomes the appeal I make to you, is where this critical view of institutions of power becomes the Socialist's entire identity. Many of us seem hellbent on fighting institutions of power that we would reject the opportunity of having our own. This is most evident regarding the role of the State in society. Socialist opinion ranges from collaboration with a Bourgeois State, to complete abolition of the State as an institution all together. What many Socialists seem to reject (especially in the West), is the idea of wielding the power of the State for our ends.

I am not a Marxist-Leninist, but they understand this point better than most. The State is the ultimate institution of power. The more autocratic the State, the more power it yields, and the higher is its efficacy. One would be right to criticize with the point that this heightens the possibility for reactionary measures. I myself once held the belief that the State is an illegitimate institution in both theory and practice, but I've come to recognize that in practice, one cannot hold the same expectations as in theory. The ends surely don't justify the means, but the means must produce an end, otherwise, what's the point? Take for instance the two largest examples of Socialism; Communist China, and the Soviet Union.

Many Socialists, particularly in the West, have a reflexive distaste for China and the USSR. So much so, that they would happily run interference for Right Wing propagandists, and condemn them alongside each other, all in the name of maintaining ideological purity. One cannot hold Libertarianism so dearly that they sing in unison against their brothers and sisters with the very people who would crush them for a profit, otherwise, what's the point?

It is not a betrayal of your values to both condemn some of the more undesirable means China and the USSR took, whilst accepting, and praising the positive aspects of their successes. It is also not hypocritical to praise the heightened living conditions for over a billion people, while condemning those negative means. We can live on both sides of the fence. We can appreciate the positive ends while condemning the means which are unnecessary and cruel.

Consider the alternative for a moment. It's 1930's Russia. you foresee the coming conflict between France and Germany, and understand you will have a role to play. Your military is weak, you are still largely an agrarian peasant society, and your people have recently endured a famine. Do you consolidate your power, industrialize, and prepare for war, whatever the cost, to protect your country's interests? Or do you forego your central authority, re-establish the worker's councils, and decentralize land control in order to establish your worker's paradise?

Luckily for Europe, Stalin chose the former path, and while his purges were condemnable, the alternative is surely a resounding defeat at the hands of the Nazis. While that is speculation on my part, it is a confident one. It took a heroic effort to push back the Nazi war machine, and is a result of statecraft and planning. In no sensible respect, can one claim a decentralized group of worker's councils could muster the forces necessary for that victory in a non-coercive, cooperative manner. The end result of this particular suspension of Libertarian values was the complete victory over Nazi Germany, and the post war boom of prosperity for the Soviet peoples.

Now consider China. Leaving aside the justification for the Civil War, what has been the end result of China's particular brand of Socialism? The single largest leap in living standards for the largest population known in history. Has there been ecological destruction? Yes of course, and has there been a vicious crackdown on independent labor movements by the government? Yes as well, but once again, we can live on both sides of the fence. No Capitalist State could possibly dream of ending famine and extreme poverty with as large and dense a population as China's in such a short time frame. That is a far superior result to a junta-style South Korean type government the KMT was bound to be had the CPC not taken control and protected their interests.

Only power can liberate people. Power is transient, but conserved. Power must lie somewhere, with someone at any point in time, and any expectation that the most maligned populations of this world can be liberated without it is foolish. Lenin and Mao (and their allies) understood this, and acted upon it. Where Lenin and Mao succeeded, others have failed, particularly in the Middle East, Africa, and Central America. Regarding a concern for the victims of imperialism, these are the great concerns of today. These people so desperately need the full power of their own governments to work for their own ends, and not bow to international Capital.

What I beg of my Socialist brothers and sisters is to understand this; at least consider the fact that the path to liberation is most easily achieved through the State. If you care at all about the aforementioned Libertarian values; freedom, liberty,  and self-determination, you wont deny these populations of them. It is extremely easy to condemn State violence, and Socialist governments of the past are certainly guilty of this violence, but we cannot try to deny the people the power of their own State out of an ideological rejection of any and all violence. The power of the State is simply too important to their liberation. Rejecting State power out of a love for Libertarianism is a denial of Libertarianism for those with no realization of liberty, freedom, and self-determination.