Stagism

[Revy]

How about a discussion on stagism (also known as the Two Stage theory?

The idea that a pre-industrial society needs two stages of development....ironically building up a capitalist economy so that the dictatorship of the proletariat can then be used against it.

The fact is that some countries have been heavily industrialized. This does not increase the possibility of revolution automatically. Germany was an industrialized society but its revolution failed, contrast that with Russia.

I don't see how any movement can support stagism, without capitulating to capitalism, and reformism.

Of course, not everyone views themselves as supporting stagism, but views it as "what must happen before socialism", but this is also supporting it, and if these mass movements in feudal or semi-feudal countries can only build capitalism, it makes their struggle meaningless.

What I'm getting at is the idea of building socialism directly in these countries. And I don't think the "national bourgeoisie" can be called a revolutionary class. The struggle against imperialism (which has far more impeded the development of socialism in the Third World, than the lack of industrialization) should be led by the working class and peasants.

[Die Neue Zeit]

[This should be in the Theory thread, BTW.]

Given my view on "labour voucher" socialism, monetary "socialism," and the coordinator class, I will say this:

1) Contrary to what Marx said in the Communist Manifesto, the bourgeoisie was *never* a revolutionary class. The revolutionary tasks of the so-called "bourgeois revolution" were all carried out mainly by the petit-bourgeoisie led by intellectuals, with the emerging proletariat in a supporting role. According to Michael Hudson, in today's world the "industrialists"/"entrepreneurs" have failed to purge the private appropriation of classical economic rent (ground rent, interest and other finance charges in general, broadcast spectrum rent, etc.) from society - the central task of the anti-feudal revolution. This is so because, unlike what Michael Hudson believes, the bourgeoisie are indeed the main beneficiaries.

2) Michael Hudson also said that "Stalinist Russia and Maoist China" succeeded in the above anti-rent task while they existed. This is because of the domination of what Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel called the "coordinator class" (apart from the small-business petit-bourgeoisie on the one hand and "functioning-capitalist" CEOs on the other), whose revolution James Burnham called the "managerial revolution."

3) What was needed in all countries (not just Russia, but even Britain beforehand) was a coordinators' revolution or a revolution that would facilitate the emergence and economic dominance of this class, but with a proletariat and even petit-bourgeoisie that were armed enough to counter any potential coordinator abuse. This is basically a modified version of Lenin's "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the [insert class ally]."

4) In the case of the so-called "national bourgeoisie," Mao made a big error with his "New Democracy." I can appreciate his peasant-based "people's war" stuff (even if it meant the proletariat would play a secondary role), but not his repetition of Stalin's popular frontism.

[Revy]

This thread is a bit dated, but it only got one reply so I hope it will be okay bumping it (I was never clear on the rules about bumping old threads).

What are coordinators? I understand this is a term for some kind of administrative position, how is this different from a bureaucrat? Thanks.

[mikelepore]

Can capitalism be skipped? What, if anything, would "go wrong" if it were England in the year 1600, for example, and most people wanted to establish socialism immediately? Why couldn't socialism already be in operation when society invented the steam engine and the telegraph, etc.? Suppose that people would have to overthrow a landed aristocracy instead of a capitalist class, but that itself doesn't answer the question.

[Black Sheep]

I don't see how any movement can support stagism, without capitulating to capitalism, and reformism.
And in fact, so many stagist movements led by anti-revisionist parties have ended up either with reformism & decay into full capitalism and collapse of the country's revolutionary left spectrum, or total defeat of the communists with atrocities,mass killings of commies and liberals alike.

[ComradeOm]

What, if anything, would "go wrong" if it were England in the year 1600, for example, and most people wanted to establish socialism immediately?Well then you have to explain, for starters, just why in all the millennia of human history there has never been a socialist society. Why didn't the peasants of England overthrow their landowners and create socialism?

The reality is that socialist thought is a direct product of the industrial revolution and, yes, capitalist society. You cannot create a socialist society without proletarians because they are the only class with a vested interest in shattering capitalist relations. All peasants want is a plot of land for themselves :glare:

The problem with 'stagism' is that, like much of the products of the Second International, it takes this simple truth and turns it into a formulaic recipe for reformism. Socialism requires the presence of industry but this does not necessarily entail the creation of a full and healthy capitalist society. To argue so in a time of revolution is simply counter-reactionary. Like much of the 'classical Marxism' devised by the Second International, 'stagism' was directly contradicted by the events of 1917 and has no place in today's Marxism


The fact is that some countries have been heavily industrialized. This does not increase the possibility of revolution automatically. Germany was an industrialized society but its revolution failed, contrast that with Russia.Yet in both Russia and Germany witnessed proletarian revolutions. In neither case was the bourgeoisie or peasantry the driver of revolution. Industrialisation may not automatically lead to revolution but it is clearly a prerequisite for a socialist one. A rejection of stagism should not lead to a rejection of class analysis

[mikelepore]

Well then you have to explain, for starters, just why in all the millennia of human history there has never been a socialist society. Why didn't the peasants of England overthrow their landowners and create socialism?

Regardless of why people didn't, if they had thought of it, and if they had wanted to do it, is there something that would have made it impossible?


The reality is that socialist thought is a direct product of the industrial revolution and, yes, capitalist society. You cannot create a socialist society without proletarians because they are the only class with a vested interest in shattering capitalist relations. All peasants want is a plot of land for themselves

Obviously the capitalists couldn't have been overthrown before there were any capitalists, but my question is - why couldn't a classless society, that is, any sort of system with the surplus value fed into general economic development instead of the luxury of a property-owning class, have been created out of the the age of city states, or the Roman Empire, or any pre-industrial age?


The problem with 'stagism' is that, like much of the products of the Second International, it takes this simple truth and turns it into a formulaic recipe for reformism.

What does it have to do with reformism? I don't understand the connection.


Socialism requires the presence of industry but this does not necessarily entail the creation of a full and healthy capitalist society. To argue so in a time of revolution is simply counter-reactionary. Like much of the 'classical Marxism' devised by the Second International, 'stagism' was directly contradicted by the events of 1917 and has no place in today's Marxism

1917 is often used as an argument in favor of stagism. The Bolsheviks tried to skip steps and look how it turned out. Instead of the working class acquiring control, the control went to a state with censorship, secret police, no right to form associations, and "elections" with one name on the ballot. It was an experiment which failed.


Yet in both Russia and Germany witnessed proletarian revolutions. In neither case was the bourgeoisie or peasantry the driver of revolution. Industrialisation may not automatically lead to revolution but it is clearly a prerequisite for a socialist one. A rejection of stagism should not lead to a rejection of class analysis

I'm lost. Sorry.

[ComradeOm]

Regardless of why people didn't, if they had thought of it, and if they had wanted to do it, is there something that would have made it impossible?Well yes, class analysis. A socialist revolution is not a single event like turning on a light. It depends as much on the class carrying it out as anything else. Which is why your question here makes no sense - the peasantry is a class with no capability for increasing society's productive forces or abolishing class. It is not a class interested in or capable of staging a socialist revolution. And if such a class is not present then obviously such a revolution is an impossibility

To put this in historical perspective, there have been countless peasant revolts throughout history, many of which have temporarily succeeded, and yet socialism has not been the product of any of them. Despite the egalitarian veneer of many of these, the reality is that a classless society is not in the interests of the peasantry. The most promising example of a socialist peasant society (the Russian mir) turned out to be actively hostile to the actual socialists following the October Revolution!

After all, "Mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, we will always find that the task itself arises only when the material conditions necessary for its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation"


Obviously the capitalists couldn't have been overthrown before there were any capitalists, but my question is - why couldn't a classless society, that is, any sort of system with the surplus value fed into general economic development instead of the luxury of a property-owning class, have been created out of the the age of city states, or the Roman Empire, or any pre-industrial age?Why would you assert that peasants are at all interested in such a socialist society or even capable of creating it?


What does it have to do with reformism? I don't understand the connectionThe development of stagism, as with many other 'innovations' of the Second International, was a direct product of that organisation's reformist tendencies. The Marxist heritage of these parties, particularly the SPD, could only be reconciled with their reformist politics by pushing the possibility of actual revolution further and further into the future. Stagism is a perfect example of this and provided a political fig leaf for the reformist parties to pursue bourgeois politics. They were after all actively 'preparing the ground' for socialism...


1917 is often used as an argument in favor of stagism. The Bolsheviks tried to skip steps and look how it turned outTalk of "skipping steps" was one of the foremost criticisms levelled at the Bolsheviks by contemporary reformists. True revolutionaries at the time recognised this for the nonsense that it was

The very idea of "skipping steps" betrays an overly mechanical and formulaic conception of history. The reality is that Russia in 1917, which was by no means an advanced capitalist society, saw a proletarian revolution. This occurred because despite the abject backwards of the wider countryside, the Russian Empire still possessed massive concentrations of modern industry and, as a result, a class of militant workers. It was the latter who drove the revolution but according to stagist theory they should either not have existed or meekly capitulated to the bourgeois demands

In short, class analysis cannot be denied and the existence of a powerful peasantry was a huge crimp on the Russian proletariat. However talking in terms of stages is useless when dealing with real workers in real revolutionary situations. What is the determining factor in whether a revolution occurs is the presence of a revolutionary proletariat and not some abstract analysis as to whether the society as a whole has developed sufficiently. The latter is merely reformist procrastination

[Tower of Bebel]

As ComradeOm already pointed out, skipping stages is impossible but stressing this truth as the one and only condition for a proletarian revolution is prove of mechanical reasoning. The Bolsheviks did not skip stages. What the theory of Permanent Revolution did however was giving a look at the balance of class forces and the development of capitalism (wich gave rise to these forces) on a global scale. From this arose the concepts of unequal development and the chain of imperialism. Lenin and Trotsky agreed that Russia was a victim of this unequal development because of European (and japanese) imperialism, but also that the faith of the Russian proletariat as an explosive and revolutionary force lay in the hands of the European proletariat.

The only real difference between Lenin and Trotsky can be found in their analysis of the peasantry and the role they thought the peansantry as a class would play. While Trotsky did not believe it could play a leading role Lenin believed it could and that the outcome of the struggles within this class (between land labourers, peasants and landowners) would determine whether or not the proletariat could or would play the leading role in the revolution. But since the stage of imperialism meant that the Russian Revolution could trigger the socialist revolution internationally (not nationally) the road to socialism could be followed. The question whether the outcome of the Russian revolution was a 'socialist' one (domination of the proletariat) or simply a 'democratic' one (domination of the peasantry) did not really matter. The survival of both depended on the outcome of a broader European struggle.

This did not imply skipping stages. Since the Bolsheviks saw their revolution as part of a global revolution they also saw an underdeveloped Russia as part of global capitalism.

[Dave B]

But it is entirely absurd to think that a bourgeois revolution does not express the interests of the proletariat at all. This absurd idea boils down either to the hoary Narodnik theory that a bourgeois revolution runs counter to the interests of the proletariat, and that therefore we do not need bourgeois political liberty; or to anarchism, which rejects all participation of the proletariat in bourgeois politics, in a bourgeois revolution and in bourgeois parliamentarism.

From the standpoint of theory, this idea disregards the elementary propositions of Marxism concerning the inevitability of capitalist development where commodity production exists.

Marxism teaches that a society which is based on commodity production, and which has commercial intercourse with civilised capitalist nations, at a certain stage of its development, itself, inevitably takes the road of capitalism.

Marxism has irrevocably broken with the ravings of the Narodniks and the anarchists to the effect that Russia, for instance, can avoid capitalist development, jump out of capitalism, or skip over it and proceed along some path other than the path of the class struggle on the basis and within the framework of this same capitalism.

All these principles of Marxism have been proved and explained over and over again in minute detail in general and with regard to Russia in particular. And from these principles it follows that the idea of seeking salvation for the working class in anything save the further development of capitalism is reactionary.

In countries like Russia, the working class suffers not so much from capitalism as from the insufficient development of capitalism. The working class suffers not so much from capitalism as from the insufficient development of capitalism.

The working class is therefore decidedly interested in the broadest, freest and most rapid development of capitalism. The removal of all the remnants of the old order which are hampering the broad, free and rapid development of capitalism is of decided advantage to the working class.

The bourgeois revolution is precisely a revolution that most resolutely sweeps away the survivals of the past, the remnants of serfdom (which include not only autocracy but monarchy as well) and most fully guarantees the broadest, freest and most rapid development of capitalism.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/ch06.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/ch06.htm)

Even if later that might sound like;




....quasi-scientific references to the progressive character of the bourgeoisie as compared with medievalism.

http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/RK18.html (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/RK18.html)


.

[mikelepore]

Why would you assert that peasants are at all interested in such a socialist society or even capable of creating it?

First I said "socialism", and then I said I meant any system of taking the surplus value and putting it back into general development instead of maintaining the luxury of a propertied class.

In all of the kinds of class divided societies that have come before, it would have been possible for the poorest 70 percent of the people to take away the property of the wealthiest 30 percent of the people. Their greater number would give them the power to do it, and the redistribution would make it economically advantageous for those who had the power to do it. The wealth that went into a few people's palaces might have been used instead to build flour mills, metal forges, plowing equipment, irrigation, road pavement. You said "class analysis", and that is what I just used. The economic motivation is feasible and majority power accompanies it.

I wonder if anyone has suggested a good explanation for why history didn't turn out that way. All of the above replies to me that are various ways of rewording the obvious fact "it has never happened that way" are ignoring my question.

[ComradeOm]

Their greater number would give them the power to do it, and the redistribution would make it economically advantageous for those who had the power to do it. The wealth that went into a few people's palaces might have been used instead to build flour mills, metal forges, plowing equipment, irrigation, road pavement. You said "class analysis", and that is what I just used. The economic motivation is feasible and majority power accompanies itAnd why would they do any of this? There's a very good reason why the peasantry is not a class noted for its economic innovation. A successful peasant revolt entails the destruction of the landlord's estate and the division of land amongst the peasantry. In societies reliant on subsistence agriculture it is the enlargement of one's plot of land that provides the "economic motivation". Even in Russia, which possessed the unique social structure of the self-levelling mir, propertied classes inevitably emerged, albeit at a slower rate than Western Europe, from the primordial sludge of the peasantry and the communes themselves took on the form of basic state structures governing in favour of the richer stratum of peasants

Then of course you have the reality that feudal landowning was not a one way street. The peasants and landlords were bound together by a series of long established traditions. It was naturally an extremely unequal partnership but one that nonetheless afforded the peasants rights and placed certain obligations on the feudal lord. Peasant revolts were typically sparked by the feeling that the lord had somehow broken these cherished traditions. Its remarkable just how often the peasantry demonstrated the narrowness of their world vision by taking up arms to insist that the King dismiss his corrupt advisers and act to restore their feudal rights. Indeed the destruction of such feudal bonds was an integral component of capitalist development


I wonder if anyone has suggested a good explanation for why history didn't turn out that way. All of the above replies to me that are various ways of rewording the obvious fact "it has never happened that way" are ignoring my question.Because the peasantry, as amply demonstrated by history, are incapable of creating such a society. This may seem akin to a tautology but the reality is that any theory that attempts to explain why this is the case will inevitably start from such a conclusion and work backwards

[Dave B]

Hi Mike Lepore


Well that is a really massive question that require a mighty tome book sized answer I would imagine.


I think ComradeOm is correct in that there did appear to be some idea in Medieval society of a kind of symbiotic rather than parasitic relationship between the ruling class and the labourers. Like a kind of social contract.

I think Rousseau expressed the idea well enough in the ‘Ideal Household’ of the Wolmar's in the didactic and perhaps satirical story `La Nouvelle Heloise' at a time when this kind of ‘ideal’ situation was breaking down;


`There is never either sullenness or discontent in obedience because there is neither haughtiness nor capriciousness in the command (of the master). Because nothing is demanded which is not reasonable or expedient, and because the master and mistress sufficiently respect the dignity of man, even though he is a servant, so as to employ him only with things that do not debase him."


"the servants know well that there most assured fortune is attached to that of their master and that they will never want for anything as long as the house is seen to prosper. In serving it, therefore, they are taking care of their own patrimony and increasing it by making their service agreeable; this is to their greatest self interest."

Letter X-to Lord Bomston

I suppose we will never know for sure what the illiterate peasants thought of it and whether or not the Watt Tyler story about appealing to the King to restore the old system and to stop abuses, poll tax and encroachments etc is true.

But we have the following from John Ball who was also part of the peasants revolt



When Adam delved and Eve span (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Adam_and_Eve), Who was then the gentleman (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Gentleman)?[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1527285#cite_note-delved-1) From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty</SPAN>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ball_(priest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ball_(priest))

It is hard to imagine that the contemporary translation and availability of the Gospels in English eg Wyclif's Bible was unconnected to these events. There is plenty of seditious material in the gospels as the church knew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wycliffe_Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wycliffe_Bible)

Although it appeared allegedly a year after the peasants revolt it would be reasonable to speculate that it was circulating and available before that.

The next attempt at the publication of the bible in English was also suppressed and it was burned, in an very early example of censorship of the written word and book burning in general.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale)


I think ComradeOm mentioned elsewhere ‘render unto Ceasar’ thing, although I don’t think that is anyway as straightforward as it might seem. I didn’t have to nor did I read a wikipedia entry on it to speculate myself about some of the alternative interpretations mentioned in it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar.. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar..).

Perhaps a later and better documented source of early communistic ideas were Winstanley’s, again invariably written in a Christian evangelistic manner, however apart from that it is quite rational and well thought out. Unfortunately Karl and Fred weren’t aware of it as it wasn’t availble.Eg




The general store-houses are such houses as receive in all commodities in the gross, as all barns and places to lay corn and the fruits of the earth at the first reaping: and these may be called store-houses for corn, flax, wool; for leather, for iron, for linen and woollen cloth or for any commodity that comes into our hand by shipping; from whence [a] particular family or shop-keepers may fetch as they need, to furnish their lesser shops.



So likewise herds of cattle in the field, flocks of sheep and horses, are all common store-houses- so that from the herds and flocks every family may fetch what they want for food or pleasure, without buying and selling.




http://www.bilderberg.org/land/lawofree.htm#Education (http://www.bilderberg.org/land/lawofree.htm#Education)


There is plenty of anti parasitic rich bastards stuff in it as well.


I think the idea of freeing up surplus labour to develop and expand both the means of production and increase the productivity of labour power etc requires several things.

First is the idea that it is possible and that there is latent and under utilised technology awaiting exploitation. That might look a lot more obvious now than it did then.

As well as a desire to do so.

Even today there are people who want to go back to living in wigwams and also today we can look back Rousseau like and with dreamy eyes at the simple life.

And it also requires later on in particular a considerable specialised division of labour and not just self-sufficient communes. That itself requires certain level of technology at least communication and transport etc.



Despite that, the best example of it were the Shakers I think who were no Luddites by any stretch of the imagination. They were in fact quite ahead of their time in furniture design, architecture, farming practice and are credited with the first development of the washing machine and the industrial circular saw. The latter was introduced by a Tabitha Babbit, so they didn’t have a problem with women working in the wood shed either.

As to the self centred to hell with everyone else attitude of the petty bourgeois peasants etc the best place to get a handle on that is from Proudhon. Despite his many positive contributions for him the idea of entering into collective co-operative socialised production would be like being assimilated by the Borg.


He even lamented the fact that some kinds of production would have to involve large scale production, like for steam engines for instance. But in those situations for him the workers would still be operating as individuals in a large workshop on some kind of mutually agreed piecework system.
.
.
.

[chegitz guevara]

In several places, communistic societies were established in the late medieval period. They tended not to last very long, being overthrown by outsiders. In the interregnum period of the Ottoman Empire, the European Sultan, Musa, and his religious adviser, Sheikh Bedrettin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedreddin), abolished private property and established communal relations. It lasted about ten years before Musa was defeated by his brother Mehmet, the Sultain in Anatolia.

In the 15th Century, in a part of the Byzantine Empire called the Morea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotate_of_the_Morea), the Despot did the same as Musa. I don't remember whether he ended the experiment or whether it ended when the Ottomans conquered the peninsula in 1460.

Thomas Müntzer attempted to establish a Christian commonwealth during the Peasants War in Germany in 1525.

There were lots of attempts to set up communist societies. They all failed.