DWS vs. state capitalism

[John "Eh" MacDonald]

What are the prominent differences between lennists views of the USSR being a State Capitalist system and Trotskyists view of it being a Degenenerated workers state?

The only difference I see between them are the names.

[Apoi_Viitor]

What are the prominent differences between lennists views of the USSR being a State Capitalist system

Usually it is anarchists and council communists who view the USSR as being State Capitalist...

[Zanthorus]

What are the prominent differences between lennists views of the USSR being a State Capitalist system and Trotskyists view of it being a Degenenerated workers state?

The only difference I see between them are the names.

First of all, as 'broadcastingsilence' notes, state-capitalism is not a 'Leninist' view. It is also slightly simplistic to say that 'degenerated workers state' is a 'Trotskyist' view, as although it was Trotsky's personal view, there are groups of non-orthodox Trotskyists who hold to a different analysis of the USSR as 'bureaucratic collectivism', and even some who hold to a state-capitalist analysis. There is also the analysis of the non-orthodox Trotskyist Hillel Ticktin of Russia as a 'non-mode of production'. Broadly, the groups which state-capitalist theory is associated with are anarchists, council communists, Bordigists, Marxist-Humanists and Cliffites.

As for the idea that the only difference is the name, this is patently false. To begin with, in terms of policy stances towards the USSR, the theorists of the 'degenerated workers' state' advocated the defence of the Soviet Union and it's 'progressive' gains during World War Two and the Cold War. Those of a state-capitalist bent were against all sides, wether fascist, stalinist or democratic. The two stances also reveal different conceptions of what exactly socialism is. For the theorists of the DWS, the nationalised property forms in the Soviet Union were enough for it to be labelled as a 'workers' state' worthy of military defence. For the theorists of state-capitalism, the Soviet Union revealed a society in the process of breaking up all feudal and patriachal relations and accumulating resources in a similar manner to that undertaken historically by all capitalist states. For this reason, it was to be opposed in a similar manner to samesaid states. For the theorists of the DWS, all that was needed was to knock off the top layers of the bureaucracy and draw the workers into the running of the state and everything would be fine. For the theorists of state-capitalism, what was needed was a complete overhaul, a social revolution.

[Dave B]

Leon Trotsky The Position of the Republic and the

Tasks of Young Workers

(Report to the 5th All-Russian Congress of the Russian Communist League of Youth 1922)




….this is explicable in part by an incomprehension of an expression frequently used by us, that we now have state capitalism. I shall not enter into an evaluation of this term; for in any case we need only to qualify what we understand by it. By state capitalism we all understood property belonging to the state which itself was in the hands of the bourgeoisie, which exploited the working class. Our state undertakings operate along commercial lines based on the market. But who stands in power here? The working class. Herein lies the principled distinction of our state ‘capitalism’ in inverted commas from state capitalism without inverted commas.

What does this mean in perspective? Just this. The more state capitalism say, in Hohenzollern Germany, as it was, developed, the more powerfully the class of junkers and capitalists of Germany could hold down the working class. The more our ‘state capitalism’ develops the richer the work ing class will become, that is the firmer will become the foundation of socialism. And our task is of course not the restoration of capitalism and of course under the Communist Party the restoration of capitalism is impossible. For this certification we can feel entirely indebted to Mr Otto Bauer, that is we can assure him too and his sympathizers and masters that as long as power remains in the hands of the Communist Party the restoration of capitalism in Russia is impossible.



http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1922/youth/youth.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1922/youth/youth.htm)


and on Lenin's view as opposed to the "Leninists " view;

V. I. Lenin SESSION OF THE ALL-RUSSIA C.E.C.

APRIL 29, 1918





What is state capitalism under Soviet power? To achieve state capitalism at the present time means putting into effect the accounting and control that the capitalist classes carried out. We see a sample of state capitalism in Germany. We know that Germany has proved superior to us. But if you reflect even slightly on what it would mean if the foundations of such state capitalism were established in Russia, Soviet Russia, everyone who is not out of his senses and has not stuffed his head with fragments of book learning, would have to say that state capitalism would be our salvation.



http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/SAR18.html (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/SAR18.html)

[graymouser]

The difference was over Soviet defenseism - that is, the orthodox Trotskyists held the viewpoint that the Soviet Union should be defended in war, militarily if necessary, but within the context of a line that called for the overthrow of the bureaucracy. The Shachtmanites in 1939-40, and later the state capitalist theorists in the 1950s, rejected defense of the degenerate workers states. The Shachtmanite line was not state capitalist at all, but called the USSR "bureaucratic collectivist" which was a new form of class society that existed in both the USSR and Nazi Germany.

I think Zanthorus's description of the degenerate workers state theory is deeply incorrect. Trotsky didn't think that just a change of bureaucracy was needed, but a political revolution that would totally remove the bureaucrats and put regenerated, democratic soviets in charge of the already collectivized economy. There were elements of exactly such a revolution in the 1956 Hungarian uprising, but this was crushed in the embryo by Soviet tanks. Until this could be realized it was necessary to defend the existing gains of the Soviet workers' state. The latter perspective was borne out totally in 1991, when it turned out that reversing the collectivization of the economy produced a social crisis that has tremendously decreased the living standard and, realistically, had a death toll in the millions as the life expectancy has plummeted. How this can happen when transitioning from "state capitalism" to market capitalism is unclear.

FWIW, there are also "state capitalist" theories among anti-revisionist MLs as well. The Maoists were calling the eastern bloc state capitalist in the 1960s. It's pretty much the default position for "It says it's socialism but I don't like it" across different leftist ideologies. I find it hard to take any state-cap theory seriously, none of them actually describes the laws of motion of this society.

[Zanthorus]

I think Zanthorus's description of the degenerate workers state theory is deeply incorrect. Trotsky didn't think that just a change of bureaucracy was needed, but a political revolution that would totally remove the bureaucrats and put regenerated, democratic soviets in charge of the already collectivized economy.

And have you ever wondered why, if a political revolution was needed, the USSR's economy was "workers' state"? For that matter, I don't think there is such a thing as a political revolution that it is not at the same time social.

[Dave B]

y





FWIW, there are also "state capitalist" theories among anti-revisionist MLs as well. The Maoists were calling the eastern bloc state capitalist in the 1960s. .

As the revisionist Mao was calling "communist" China in1953!

Mao Tse-tung THE ONLY ROAD FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF CAPITALIST INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE



The transformation of capitalism into socialism is to be accomplished through state capitalism.


1. In the last three years or so we have done some work on this, but as we were otherwise occupied, we didn't exert ourselves enough. From now on we should make a bigger effort.


2. With more than three years of experience behind us, we can say with certainty that accomplishing the socialist transformation of private industry and commerce by means of state capitalism is a relatively sound policy and method.


3. The policy laid down in Article 31 of the Common Programme should now be clearly understood and concretely applied step by step. "Clearly understood" means that people in positions of leadership at the central and local levels should first of all have the firm conviction that state capitalism is the only road for the transformation of capitalist industry and commerce and for the gradual completion of the transition to socialism. So far this has not been the case either with members of the Communist Party or with democratic personages. The present meeting is being held to achieve that end.



http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/TC53.html

[Dave B]

The whole Trotskyist thesis and lie on state capitalism etc is in fact only based on a page or so from Trotsky’s The Revolution Betrayed;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch09.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch09.htm)



He also said the following circa 1922;

Leon Trotsky The First Five Years of the Communist International

Volume 2

Delivered at the November 14, 1922 Session of the Fourth World Congress of the Comintern





The alleged "capitulation" of the Soviet power to capitalism is deduced by the Social Democrats not from an analysis of facts and figures, but from vague generalities, as often as not from the term "state capitalism" which we employ in referring to our state economy. In my own opinion this term is neither exact nor happy. Comrade Lenin has already underscored in his report the need of enclosing this term in quotation marks, that is, of using it with the greatest caution.

This is a very important injunction because not everybody is cautious enough. In Europe this term was interpreted quite erroneously even by Communists. There are many who imagine that our state industry represents genuine state capitalism, in the strict sense of this term as universally accepted among Marxists. That is not at all the case, If one does speak of state capitalism, then this is done in very big quotation marks, so big that they overshadow the term itself. Why? For a very obvious reason. In using this term it is impermissible to ignore the class character of the state.

It is not unhelpful to bear in mind that the term itself is socialist in its origin. Jaurès and the French reformists in general who emulated him used to talk of the "consistent socialization of the democratic republic". To this we Marxists replied that so long as political power remained in the hands of the bourgeoisie this socialization was not socialization at all and that it would not lead to socialism but only to state capitalism.

To put it differently, the ownership of various factories, railways and so on by diverse capitalists would be superseded by an ownership of the totality of enterprises, railways and so on by the very same bourgeois firm, called the state. In the same measure as the bourgeoisie retains political power, it will, as a whole, continue to exploit the proletariat through the medium of state capitalism, just as an individual bourgeois exploits, by means of private ownership, "his own" workers.

The term "state capitalism" was thus put forward, or at all events, employed polemically by revolutionary Marxists against the reformists, for the purpose of explaining and proving that genuine socialization begins only after the conquest of power by the working class. The reformists, as you know, built their entire program around reforms. We Marxists never denied socialist reforms. But we said that the epoch of socialist reforms would be inaugurated only after the conquest of power by the proletariat. There was a controversy over this. Today in Russia the power is in the hands of the working class. The most important industries are in the hands of the workers’ state. No class exploitation exists here, and consequently, neither does capitalism exist although its forms still persist. The industry of the workers’ state is a socialist industry in its tendencies of development, but in order to develop, it utilizes methods which were invented by capitalist economy and which we have far from outlived as yet.

Under a genuine state capitalism, that is, under bourgeois rule, the growth of state capitalism signifies the enrichment of the bourgeois state, its growing power over the working class. In our country, the growth of soviet state industry signifies the growth of socialism itself, a direct strengthening of the power of the proletariat.



http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/ffyci-2/20.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/ffyci-2/20.htm)

Trotsky also quoted from Lenin's more famous clear cut state capitalism speech,On Left Wing Childishness and Petty Bourgeois Tendencies




At the beginning of the same year, i.e., 1918, Lenin, in his article entitled “On Left Wing Childishness and Petty Bourgeois Tendencies,” directed against Bukharin, wrote the following:

“ If, let us say, state capitalism could be established in our country within six months, that would be a tremendous achievement and the surest guarantee that within a year socialism will be definitely established and will have become invincible.”


http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm

[Weezer]

http://www.marxists.org/subject/stalinism/origins-future/ch1-2a.htm#6-0


Trotsky’s position throughout the last decade of his life was premised on the fact that the USSR was a workers’ state, albeit a degenerated workers’ state. This meant that while fighting for the overthrow of the Soviet government, he defended the Soviet State against Imperialism and capitalist restoration.

Many have argued over the years, either on the basis of the reactionary policies of the Stalinist bureaucracy, or on the basis of its petit-bourgeois social composition that some time between 1923 and 1939 the USSR was transformed into a capitalist state.

There is no doubt that the USSR bore little resemblance to what a workers’ state ought to look like. But that is hardly decisive. Just as we recognise a right-wing trade union as nevertheless a trade union, a workers’ state led by right-wingers remains a workers’ state.

Others have argued on the basis of the character of the economy in the USSR that the state was capitalist. For example, that the existence of wage labour ipso facto meant that the economy was capitalist. This assertion ignores the fact that although Soviet workers were paid wages, they were not generally free to sell their labour power to the highest bidder on a labour market. As a matter of fact, where Soviet labour deviated from the wages form, it was in general to the detriment not benefit of the workers.

The transition to socialism shall be marked by a diminution of wages as the means of subsistence becomes increasingly freely available to all, and people have need to buy nothing. That is, wages shall be not the first but the last commodity to die away under a workers’ dictatorship.

Others have argued that even though the bureaucracy do not own the means of production as private property, they do control it. And since they employ workers and live off the surplus value, they ipso facto constitute a capitalist class, a ‘state capitalist class’.

To deal with this proposition, it is necessary to identify what is the essence of capitalism, since whatever the Soviet Union is, it is certainly not a normal, healthy capitalist or socialist society.

The chief characteristic of capitalist society is the penetration of the commodity relation into every aspect of life. Whatever the distortions of Soviet society, it is a fact that the State did until the last few years of its life combat the spread of commodity relations. Even during NEP when the state deliberately stimulated commodity production, it retained the ‘commanding heights’ as state property. Even today, the capitalist restorationists are having great difficulty in privatising these basic industries.

All such formalistic arguments based on analysis of economic relations make an equation between the character of the economy and the character of the state. Such an equation is quite spurious. The transformation of the economic base is a protracted process. In any workers’ revolution, bourgeois economic relations must continue for a long time after the workers seize public political power.

‘The bourgeois norms of distribution, by hastening the growth of material power, ought to serve socialist aims - but only in the last analysis. The state assumes directly and from the very beginning a dual character: socialistic, insofar as it defends social property in the means of production; bourgeois, insofar as the distribution of life’s goods is carried out with a capitalistic measure of value and all the consequences ensuing therefrom’.. [65]

This characterisation of the dual character of the workers state means that the struggle for socialism must be ‘permanent’. The struggle against capitalism does not come to an end when the working class seizes state power, but simply enters a new stage:

‘We defend the USSR ... as we solve all our problems ... by the method of international class struggle ... irreconcilable opposition, not only in capitalist countries, but also in the USSR ... “defence of the USSR” we realise not through the medium of bourgeois governments or even through the government of the USSR, but exclusively through the education of the masses through agitation, through explaining to the workers what they should defend and what they should overthrow ...’.. [66]

The obsessive character of the need some political groups feel to prove that the USSR was a capitalist state from as early as 1923, even today, after the fall of Stalinism, is not due to a concern with the history of the USSR. It is an expression of their politics here and now - that the past gains of the working class, their terms and conditions of employment, their conservative trade unions, are not worthy of defending.

Most of the rhetoric aimed at showing workers why they should not defend a degenerated workers’ state, would serve equally well directed against a young, healthy workers’ state, still grappling with the problems of taking command of the economy and beginning to transform it.

The soviet bureaucracy was not a separate class. It did have certain features of a caste, and it was a reactionary element within the workers state that was slowly restoring capitalism, but there were fundamental differences that made it not capitalist. One such difference was that the workers were not free to sell their labor. Commodity relations were non existent, no one profited from anyone else labor. The bureaucracy set unfair wages, but everyone received wages even if bureaucrats were much higher paid than the average soviet worker. As we all know, social class has little to do with income, and the party bureaucracy was so transient that it couldn't be constituted as a class.Yes, the power dynamic was unequal and unjust, the bureaucracy had way too much power, but that power had to do with how much power the party bureaucracy gave to them (and could just as easily revoke) not how much capital they had obtained or how much property they owned.

[ZeroNowhere]

It did have certain features of a caste, and it was a reactionary element within the workers state that was slowly restoring capitalism, but there were fundamental differences that made it not capitalist. One such difference was that the workers were not free to sell their labor. Commodity relations were non existentIn which case you would have no proletariat, and hence no 'workers' state' to degenerate or contain reactionary elements.

[Thirsty Crow]

Both options fail to some extent, IMO.
What does a "worker's state" imply regarding the economic structure of a society? It is a quick fix, regardless of actual productive relations.
On the other hand, state capitalist theory ignores certain aspects of the actual, economic practice, as PurpleBurger pointed out.

Now, from little what I've read (very little), the theory of bureaucratic collectivism seems plausible...so far.
So, what I'd like is a recommendation for reading on this subject matter - "bureaucratic collectivism".


The soviet bureaucracy was not a separate class. It did have certain features of a caste, and it was a reactionary element within the workers state that was slowly restoring capitalism, but there were fundamental differences that made it not capitalist.Why do you assume that the Soviet bureaucracy was necessarily a capitalist in order to be a separate class at all?
I mean, if you do not buy into that bull about non-antagonistic classes, and you don't think that classes have been eliminated altogether in USSR, you are basically forced to conclude that the bureaucracy indeed did form a separate class.

[graymouser]

And have you ever wondered why, if a political revolution was needed, the USSR's economy was "workers' state"?
The Comintern had four criteria for a workers' state, which were:

1. Workers' democracy.
2. Nationalization of the means of production.
3. State monopoly of foreign trade.
4. Central planning of production.

These four criteria mean that the workers' state is building toward socialism - that is, economically it has begun the process of suppressing the market for labor and replacing it with production based on a rational plan. The last three criteria were present in the Soviet Union after the consolidation of power by the Stalinists, and Trotsky considered it a major gain of the October Revolution. He was right; these things allowed the USSR to industrialize faster than any other country could have in the past, and create social benefits to rival the imperialist countries at the same time. Their removal caused a tremendous social catastrophe. As such, I think it was correct to have a position of defending these gains.


For that matter, I don't think there is such a thing as a political revolution that it is not at the same time social.
Well, you'd be wrong. Probably the majority of revolutions do not imply a total change in the mode of production and the wiping-out of the previous ruling class in society. The French Revolution of 1789 was a social revolution, and the Paris Commune would have been a social revolution had it not been drowned in blood, but the 1830 and 1848 revolutions were not. Plenty of 20th century events, such as the rise or fall of military dictatorships in countries that remained capitalist, were also political revolutions. The basis for the idea is not so much from The Revolution Betrayed as The Eighteenth Brumaire. Trotsky's theory of the political revolution in the USSR, which the League for the Fifth International would apply today to Cuba or North Korea but not China or Vietnam, was an extension of this idea to the society created by the October Revolution, waging the battle for socialism under the banner of defense of the gains of that revolution.

[Zanthorus]

So, what I'd like is a recommendation for reading on this subject matter - "bureaucratic collectivism".

Bruno Rizzi's 'The Bureaucratisation of the World' is, I think, the first major text where the 'Bureacratic Collectivist' analysis is developed:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm

[Thirsty Crow]

Bruno Rizzi's 'The Bureaucratisation of the World' is, I think, the first major text where the 'Bureacratic Collectivist' analysis is developed:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm
Yes, I'm aware of that fact, but do you know of any other noteworthy development of this theoretical framework?

[graymouser]

Yes, I'm aware of that fact, but do you know of any other noteworthy development of this theoretical framework?
Well, the main current of bureaucratic collectivism that stayed on the left (as opposed to the neoconservative right-Shachtmanite movement) has always been around the magazine New Politics (http://newpolitics.mayfirst.org/). There are still some adherents in Solidarity. The Center for Socialist History (http://csh.gn.apc.org/), which focuses on the politics of Hal Draper - the key left-Shachtmanite theorist - recently published an anthology, Neither Capitalism Nor Socialism (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0916695158/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0391039288&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1Q0F3JBNF0DA21HA99RJ), that followed the development of the theory a good deal further. Draper's politics are pretty much the touchstone for left-Shachtmanism, and are fairly important in the ISO as well.

The actual reading is a bit thin, honestly; there was never a real attempt to do a comprehensive critique of the political economy of the "bureaucratic collectivist" states as Marx had done for capitalism in Capital. I suspect that's partly why state capitalist theories have come to predominate over bureaucratic collectivist ones, although the literature of state capitalist theory is also problematic, it is better than the left-Shachtmanite stuff.

[Zanthorus]

there was never a real attempt to do a comprehensive critique of the political economy of the "bureaucratic collectivist" states as Marx had done for capitalism in Capital.

Although not a 'Bueracratic Collectivism' theorist, Hillel Ticktin of the journal Critique has written extensively on the political economy of the fSU with an eye towards examining it according to it's own laws and tendencies rather than superimposing the characteristics of capitalism or a 'workers' state' onto it. There's a review of Hillel's work here which explains some of his ideas:

http://libcom.org/history/towards-political-economy-stalinism

Aufheben did an overview and a critique of his work here:

http://libcom.org/library/what-was-ussr-part-2-hillel-ticktin-aufheben

[Niccolò Rossi]

The Comintern had four criteria for a workers' state, which were:

1. Workers' democracy.
2. Nationalization of the means of production.
3. State monopoly of foreign trade.
4. Central planning of production.

The Communist International or the 4th International? If it was the CI, at which point in the CI's lifespan? Could you provide some documentation in support of this claim?


Trotsky's theory of the political revolution in the USSR, which the League for the Fifth International would apply today to Cuba or North Korea but not China or Vietnam, was an extension of this idea to the society created by the October Revolution, waging the battle for socialism under the banner of defense of the gains of that revolution.

The great mystery remains as to how a workers' state (no matter how 'deformed') can be created without the conscious effort of a revolutionary proletariat.

Nic.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Now, from little what I've read (very little), the theory of bureaucratic collectivism seems plausible

In so far as one is happy to abandon Marxism that is.

Nic.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The main problem with state capitalism theories is that the term "state capitalism" is now too broad for its original limits (more centered around extensive dirigisme up to what China is like now).

I don't agree with graymouser on all his points in this thread, but the "'It says it's socialism but I don't like it' across different leftist ideologies" is another valid critique of at least some state capitalism theories. Most Cliffites and "Anti-Revisionists" coughed up their theories to give cover for siding with downright imperialists.

I personally appreciate the anti-colonial efforts of the Soviet Union post-WWII and critically support its episodes of "sending in the tanks" (see the Learning thread on "tankies") (http://www.revleft.com/vb/whats-bad-being-t143404/index.html?p=1897244) despite the shouts of "social imperialism."

Then there are those who aren't as opportunistic but suffer the main problem of the state capitalism theories. The council-coms, Bordigists, and Marxist-Humanists are an example of this. Here, however, the link between "state capitalism" and "social imperialism" is thankfully more tenuous.

"Bureaucratic collectivism" gives collectivism too bad a name, I think, but I don't want to discuss too much the implications of either "bureaucratic collectivism" or "bureaucratized mass commodity production" (BMCP) other than the fact that both positions deliberately avoid or reject the questionable "social imperialism" position.

BMCP imperialism is merely a policy that is usually rejected (most notably the lack of capital investments abroad except for instances like Stalin's post-WWII industrial relocation from Eastern Europe and Khrushchev's Aswan Dam project, but also the preference for trade subsidies).]

[Thirsty Crow]

In so far as one is happy to abandon Marxism that is.

Nic.
Care to explain, briefly? I am not familiar enough with the theory itself in order that I may understand why is it necessary for one to abandon Marxism if he/she upholds it (the theory).

[Niccolò Rossi]

Care to explain, briefly? I am not familiar enough with the theory itself in order that I may understand why is it necessary for one to abandon Marxism if he/she upholds it (the theory).

The theory of 'bureaucratic collectivism' posits that capitalism is not the final class society in history. Moreover, it denies the uniquely revolutionary role occupied by the proletariat, both of which are the most fundamental principles of Marxism.

Nic.

[Thirsty Crow]

The theory of 'bureaucratic collectivism' posits that capitalism is not the final class society in history. Moreover, it denies the uniquely revolutionary role occupied by the proletariat, both of which are the most fundamental principles of Marxism.

Nic.

Ugh, that may be too brief I'm afraid.

As far as the final class society is concerned, chronologically I think that the "socialist bloc" in fact does represent the latest class society in human history, since I don't think that it would be accurate to designate its economic base as capitalist (despite the unquestionable fact of commodity production). Please, can you elaborate further on this point because I might be missing something here.

And as far as the second point is concerned, no argument here, I agree.

[graymouser]

The Communist International or the 4th International? If it was the CI, at which point in the CI's lifespan? Could you provide some documentation in support of this claim?
I do not know the specific Comintern documents Trotsky was referring to; the formulation is definitely Trotsky's, from In Defense of Marxism.


The great mystery remains as to how a workers' state (no matter how 'deformed') can be created without the conscious effort of a revolutionary proletariat.
Trade unions can be formed around workers without their conscious effort - and in a crisis can even become organs of workers' struggle. It's the same with a degenerate* workers' state formed by a bonapartist government: the property forms have removed the capitalist class from the equation, and social benefits flow such as the admirable healthcare and education we see in Cuba today. But the workers do not have control through organs of workers' democracy (i.e. soviets).

It's interesting, though, because this argument is an appeal to consequences: it changes the analysis, not because it's wrong, but because you don't like the answer that it returns. I think this has driven a lot of the state capitalist and bureaucratic collectivist analysis; it's actually pretty well documented in Tony Cliff's case that the consequences of the degenerated workers' state position was what drove him away from it in the late 1940s. The problem is, it's the only analysis that actually looks at the production process and sees it as qualitatively having been removed from the laws of motion of capitalism, through changing the forms of property. Every other analysis I think gets away from Marxism to some extent, because the differentiation between form and content in the means of production becomes exaggerated to the point where the former basically is said not to matter - when clearly it matters, and I think that the disaster in Russia particularly proves this.

*The League for the Fifth International doesn't use the word "deformed" because we think that it reflects a false hope that the Fourth International had for Yugoslavia and later Cuba that they would "reform" on their own. We hold that political revolution was necessary from day one.

[Queercommie Girl]

*The League for the Fifth International doesn't use the word "deformed" because we think that it reflects a false hope that the Fourth International had for Yugoslavia and later Cuba that they would "reform" on their own. We hold that political revolution was necessary from day one.


I have to say I disagree with this. Obviously nothing can "reform on their own", but a combination of Trotskyist and other forces in certain conditions can bring about a genuine structural reform in a Stalinist or deformed worker's state.

Trotskyism does not monopolise the concept the proletarian democracy. Left Maoists like the MCPC/CCP(M) in China today also say they support proletarian democracy. I believe a healthy communist party/parties should have multiple tendencies within it/them, rather than having everything dominated by the Trotskyists.

I am a centrist with respect to Stalinism. But I explicitly support the rehabilitation of Trotsky, even if this means risking going to jail in a Stalinist state.

[Aurora]

*The League for the Fifth International doesn't use the word "deformed" because we think that it reflects a false hope that the Fourth International had for Yugoslavia and later Cuba that they would "reform" on their own. We hold that political revolution was necessary from day one.
Ive never heard this before, what does it mean exactly, that the bureaucracy would reform the state to a democratic form?
The only way ive heard people use the 'deformed workers state' concept is in reference to countries that need a political revolution from day one as you said.

Also if you refer to say Cuba as a degenerated workers state that suggests to me that you think it was healthy and democratic at some point, like Trotsky does with the SU.

[Queercommie Girl]

I've never heard this before, what does it mean exactly, that the bureaucracy would reform the state to a democratic form?


No, the bureaucratic ruling bloc will not reform in a top-down manner, without pressure from below.

But the ruling parties in Stalinist states are not a monolith. The lower layers of the party are mostly from working class and middle class backgrounds. Under certain conditions they could enact a democratic reform within the structure of the Stalinist party.

[Aurora]

No, the bureaucratic ruling bloc will not reform in a top-down manner, without pressure from below.

But the ruling parties in Stalinist states are not a monolith. The lower layers of the party are mostly from working class and middle class backgrounds. Under certain conditions they could enact a democratic reform within the structure of the Stalinist party.

No i didnt think that possible but ive never heard anyone argue that as graymouser suggests the 4th international might have.

I cant think of an example of that happening, but the opposite has many examples, stalinist parties turning rightwards to reformism.
How would workers in a stalinist party pressure the leadership without their being a democratic party structure?

[graymouser]

I have to say I disagree with this. Obviously nothing can "reform on their own", but a combination of Trotskyist and other forces in certain conditions can bring about a genuine structural reform in a Stalinist or deformed worker's state.
Our criticism of this position was the cornerstone of The Death Agony of the Fourth International (http://www.fifthinternational.org/content/publications/pamphlets/death-agony-fourth-international), our major statement on why the FI became centrist. They took a stance of looking for "reform" Stalinists on the world scale, lowering their own banner in many places, and partially causing the 1953 rift in the International. It proceeded to wreck the parties built by Trotsky and his followers, and the centrism of Pablo's FI was a large part of the reason why the Bolivian section did not move as it objectively could have to take power in the 1951-53 revolution.

What this perspective ignores is that Stalinism is not simply a wrong ideology but the political form by which the bureaucracy holds onto a distinctly bonapartist form of power over a state that would otherwise be run directly for the interests of the working class. You are basically looking for "self-hating bureaucrats" who would sell their own caste short - a prospect that Trotsky did entertain for a period, but abandoned. Marxists generally cannot hang their hats on such pegs, even provisionally.


Trotskyism does not monopolise the concept the proletarian democracy. Left Maoists like the MCPC/CCP(M) in China today also say they support proletarian democracy. I believe a healthy communist party/parties should have multiple tendencies within it/them, rather than having everything dominated by the Trotskyists.
I have nothing against parties with multiple working-class tendencies, as long as those tendencies agree to democratic centralism - that is, complete freedom of discussion, complete unity in action. (DC should not mean that anyone thinking differently should be expelled.) But even "reform Stalinism" is an ideology of the bureaucracy, not of the working class, and I do not think it could be legitimately part of a democratic Leninist party. Bluntly, I do not trust "Left Maoists" to not turn into "Right Maoists" once you give them power.

[graymouser]

Ive never heard this before, what does it mean exactly, that the bureaucracy would reform the state to a democratic form?
The only way ive heard people use the 'deformed workers state' concept is in reference to countries that need a political revolution from day one as you said.
That's not how the term started out its life, although it is the term used by Trotskyists from the Fourth Internationalist tradition to describe what we (i.e. the L5I) call the degenerate workers' states. We're pretty much unique in being picky about the term, FWIW.

But in the late 1940s, the International Secretariat of the FI actually requested attendance rights at the congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and considered a positive relationship with Tito and Yugoslavia as a whole. Although this didn't work out, the "deformed workers state" name came out of the desire of the FI leadership to hedge its bets, keeping what had been previously called the "glacis states" in a position where they weren't necessarily considered full-blown Stalinist countries.

Things got more terminologically obscure with the Cuban revolution, when the ISFI (the side of the 1953 split that had the majority) and the US SWP (at the time in the minority but still one of the larger parties) converged on the view that Cuba was in fact a "workers state" that was "lacking as yet the forms of proletarian democracy." They avoided the term "deformed workers' state" but even more explicitly held out the possibility of reform without a proletarian political revolution.


Also if you refer to say Cuba as a degenerated workers state that suggests to me that you think it was healthy and democratic at some point, like Trotsky does with the SU.
Well, the terminology is not perfect, but I think it makes the intended impact: that the Cuban workers' state was not merely qualitatively deformed but that it had been degenerate from birth, like a child born with syphilis. We do sometimes clarify that these were specifically "degenerate from birth," along pretty much the same analogy.

[Queercommie Girl]

Our criticism of this position was the cornerstone of The Death Agony of the Fourth International (http://www.fifthinternational.org/content/publications/pamphlets/death-agony-fourth-international), our major statement on why the FI became centrist. They took a stance of looking for "reform" Stalinists on the world scale, lowering their own banner in many places, and partially causing the 1953 rift in the International. It proceeded to wreck the parties built by Trotsky and his followers, and the centrism of Pablo's FI was a large part of the reason why the Bolivian section did not move as it objectively could have to take power in the 1951-53 revolution.

What this perspective ignores is that Stalinism is not simply a wrong ideology but the political form by which the bureaucracy holds onto a distinctly bonapartist form of power over a state that would otherwise be run directly for the interests of the working class. You are basically looking for "self-hating bureaucrats" who would sell their own caste short - a prospect that Trotsky did entertain for a period, but abandoned. Marxists generally cannot hang their hats on such pegs, even provisionally.


You seem to have missed my point about the ruling parties of Stalinist states not being a monolith. Not every party member and cadre is actually a part of the ruling bloc of bureaucrats, that's a ridiculous evaluation. The lower layers of party members are largely from working class and middle class backgrounds.

Like myself, my family came from a semi-working class semi-petit-bureaucrat background in the PRC, in other words, the lower middle class of Stalinist countries. Objectively we certainly have much much more interests in common with the wider working class in general than we do with the ruling bureaucratic bloc, just as the lower middle class in Western capitalist countries have much more interests in common with the working class than they do with the ruling corporate capitalists in power. How can you completely write-off the progressive potential of the middle class in Stalinist states?



But even "reform Stalinism" is an ideology of the bureaucracy, not of the working class, and I do not think it could be legitimately part of a democratic Leninist party. Bluntly, I do not trust "Left Maoists" to not turn into "Right Maoists" once you give them power.


The problem is that like third-campist Trots, you are assuming the working class and the bureaucracy are like two distinct classes just like the capitalist class and the working class are two separate classes in Western capitalist states. In the West there are class differences that cannot be reconciled, but the bureaucracy of "Stalinism" is not a distinct class in its own right, but a layer or caste of the working class itself.

So you will literally ban Maoist parties if your organisation comes to power in the world at large? This unfortunately I cannot accept. I call myself neither a Maoist nor a Trotskyist but a proletarian democrat, and just as I will defend the rights of Trotskyists in a Maoist state at the risk of going to jail, I will also defend the rights of Maoists in a Trotskyist state at the risk of going to jail.

Don't let your zeal for "proletarian democracy" dialectically transform you into your own opposites.

P.S. your position on this issue is not as good as what I've heard from both the MCPC and the CWI. The Maoist MCPC told me that if they get into power they will allow Trotskyist parties to operate, CWI China (Chinaworker) told me the same thing. Of course, both could be lying but both seem to be more open-minded than your organisation.

Just to clarify though, I do not really count on certain "pegs" in the bureaucratic ruling bloc either, but unlike you, I do not rule out the "middling layers" of Stalinist society, and the possibility that when pressure is put on the ruling bloc by both the petit-bureaucrats and the working class at large, genuine structural reform might be possible.

But frankly all of this is somewhat pedantic since there are very few genuinely Stalinist states left in the world now.

[Queercommie Girl]

No i didnt think that possible but ive never heard anyone argue that as graymouser suggests the 4th international might have.

I cant think of an example of that happening, but the opposite has many examples, stalinist parties turning rightwards to reformism.
How would workers in a stalinist party pressure the leadership without their being a democratic party structure?

Well they would have to try to establish democratic structures within the party itself. Left Maoists sometimes think a literal armed civil war may be necessary, but with both sides flying the same national and party banners.

The lower layers of the armed forces, as Left Maoists argue, could also be won over to the side of the people, while the higher officer castes will no doubt defend the interests of the bureaucratic ruling bloc.

[graymouser]

You seem to have missed my point about the ruling parties of Stalinist states not being a monolith. Not every party member and cadre is actually a part of the ruling bloc of bureaucrats, that's a ridiculous evaluation. The lower layers of party members are largely from working class and middle class backgrounds.

Like myself, my family came from a semi-working class semi-petit-bureaucrat background in the PRC, in other words, the lower middle class of Stalinist countries. Objectively we certainly have much much more interests in common with the wider working class in general than we do with the ruling bureaucratic bloc, just as the lower middle class in Western capitalist countries have much more interests in common with the working class than they do with the ruling corporate capitalists in power. How can you completely write-off the progressive potential of the middle class in Stalinist states?
In a situation where there was an actual working-class party in a Stalinist state, there could be collaborators from among the ruling party - but these layers are small, isolated and have no revolutionary potential on their own. They must be led by the working class as part of the political revolution. Strategically, in the late 1940s and early 1950s the FI was looking for such a faction in the parties of the eastern bloc outside of a genuine proletarian party; they found none, but the damage was done.


The problem is that like third-campist Trots, you are assuming the working class and the bureaucracy are like two distinct classes just like the capitalist class and the working class are two separate classes in Western capitalist states. In the West there are class differences that cannot be reconciled, but the bureaucracy of "Stalinism" is not a distinct class in its own right, but a layer or caste of the working class itself.
No, what we reject is the idea that a reform bureaucracy can substitute for a political revolution, which is what is implied in your stance.


So you will literally ban Maoist parties if your organisation comes to power in the world at large? This unfortunately I cannot accept. I call myself neither a Maoist nor a Trotskyist but a proletarian democrat, and just as I will defend the rights of Trotskyists in a Maoist state at the risk of going to jail, I will also defend the rights of Maoists in a Trotskyist state at the risk of going to jail.

Don't let your zeal for "proletarian democracy" dialectically transform you into your own opposites.
This is a bizarre and twisted vision of politics. Perhaps it comes from your sympathy with Maoism, but I do not see an identity between refusing to be part of a party or governmental bloc with Stalinists and outright banning them. I wouldn't rule it out; if a Maoist party tried to wage "people's war" against a Trotskyist-led workers' state, I would support it being banned, but otherwise I don't think such things would be necessary. It's a very Stalinist idea that "not allied with" equals "banned."


P.S. your position on this issue is not as good as what I've heard from both the MCPC and the CWI. The Maoist MCPC told me that if they get into power they will allow Trotskyist parties to operate, CWI China (Chinaworker) told me the same thing. Of course, both could be lying but both seem to be more open-minded than your organisation.
Did they say they would share power in a bloc with these parties? I doubt it.


Just to clarify though, I do not really count on certain "pegs" in the bureaucratic ruling bloc either, but unlike you, I do not rule out the "middling layers" of Stalinist society, and the possibility that when pressure is put on the ruling bloc by both the petit-bureaucrats and the working class at large, genuine structural reform might be possible.
The lower strata of the bureaucracy do not have revolutionary potential; I would reject that idea entirely. Structural reform in the DPRK or Cuba would require the bureaucracy to be overthrown and removed from power, root and branch.

[Queercommie Girl]

In a situation where there was an actual working-class party in a Stalinist state, there could be collaborators from among the ruling party - but these layers are small, isolated and have no revolutionary potential on their own. They must be led by the working class as part of the political revolution. Strategically, in the late 1940s and early 1950s the FI was looking for such a faction in the parties of the eastern bloc outside of a genuine proletarian party; they found none, but the damage was done.


You do realise though that the lowest layers of these ruling parties are basically just ordinary workers economically speaking without any real privileges? I think you are still talking about the lower layers of the bureaucratic ruling bloc itself. Being a member of a Stalinist party doesn't imply one is a part of the "bureaucracy". Such an evaluation is not objectively correct. Do you reject that the lower middle class in Stalinist societies share much more common interests with the working class in general than they do with the ruling bloc? Just because they are CP members doesn't change that.

An analogy: in the old days of the Militant Tendency (now the CWI), when they were still a part of the Labour Party, they thought they include transform the Labour Party into a genuine worker's party through a class war within the party itself. Of course in Stalinist societies the objective conditions are different but something similar is also possible.



No, what we reject is the idea that a reform bureaucracy can substitute for a political revolution, which is what is implied in your stance.


No I do not believe the bureaucratic ruling bloc can be reformed. But this doesn't mean I completely reject the Communist Party as a whole.



This is a bizarre and twisted vision of politics.


Please, save me the insults. I only defend the basic political freedoms of all tendencies. I would similarly defend the rights of anarchists to exist even though I'm not an anarchist.



Perhaps it comes from your sympathy with Maoism,


I am indeed partly a Maoist.



but I do not see an identity between refusing to be part of a party or governmental bloc with Stalinists and outright banning them.


Ok. It depends on the concrete policies though. I attach more value to concrete policies than abstract labels like Trotskyism or Maoism.



I wouldn't rule it out; if a Maoist party tried to wage "people's war" against a Trotskyist-led workers' state, I would support it being banned, but otherwise I don't think such things would be necessary.


Ok. Well, as long as Trotskyists don't impose top-down undemocratic collectivisation in the rural areas or have policies that harm the interests of peasants in favour of urban workers, I will not support such a "people's war".



It's a very Stalinist idea that "not allied with" equals "banned."


Perhaps. Though it's interesting that my friends in the MCPC insist that Maoism is very different from Stalinism. (Partly why I call them Left Maoists)



Did they say they would share power in a bloc with these parties? I doubt it.


Not certain. I think it would depend on the concrete policies. Every party and tendency, after all, changes with time.



The lower strata of the bureaucracy do not have revolutionary potential; I would reject that idea entirely.


The lower strata of the bureaucratic ruling bloc does not equate with the lower strata of the party itself. To say that the lower layers of the CP has no revolutionary potential is like saying the lower middle classes in Western capitalist states have no revolutionary potential, and even more so, because the Stalinist bureaucracy is not counterposed to the working class like how the capitalist class is opposed to the working class in Western countries.



Structural reform in the DPRK or Cuba would require the bureaucracy to be overthrown and removed from power, root and branch.


I prefer the more moderate stances of many Fourth International and affiliated branches on this matter. I do not rule out the possibility of a class war within the structure of the CP itself.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Trade unions can be formed around workers without their conscious effort - and in a crisis can even become organs of workers' struggle.

This is a terrible argument. You can't equate the formation of a trade union (a means of workers economic self-defence) to the abolition of capitalism and the construction of proletarian social relations!


It's the same with a degenerate* workers' state formed by a bonapartist government: the property forms have removed the capitalist class from the equation, and social benefits flow such as the admirable healthcare and education we see in Cuba today. But the workers do not have control through organs of workers' democracy (i.e. soviets).

To say that the decrees of bureaucrats are enough to abolish capitalism and usher in proletarian 'property forms' completely denies the revolutionary role of the proletariat. It is an abandonment of Marxism.


It's interesting, though, because this argument is an appeal to consequences: it changes the analysis, not because it's wrong, but because you don't like the answer that it returns.

This doesn't mean anything to me. For one, our analysis is not that capitalism has been overthrown in the first place. I think that any analysis that suggests that it has is a superficial and flawed one. One does not need to appeal to consequences.

Even if we do for the sake of argument conclude as you do, we would need to abandon Marxism in favour of reality. This would be no harm done of course since Marxism is not a dogma but we would atleast have to be honest about it.

Nic.

[Queercommie Girl]

^

What's the point of arguing? You know the orthodox Stalinists, left Maoists, orthodox Trotskyists, third-campist Trotskyists, left Communists and anarchists would never agree with each other. :D

Let's just agree to co-operate on issues we all have in common.