Die Neue Zeit
20th December 2010, 03:10
In discussions during the NEP, leading Bolsheviks talked about instigating a Thermidor themselves so as not to be overthrown. It was clear that the Bolsheviks lost majority political support from the working class, ever since the Bolshevik coups d'etat of 1918 against soviets that returned Left-SR and/or Menshevik-Internationalist majorities. The later influx of peasants into the party as part of the "Lenin Levy" was a reflection of a shift in class support.
Did Russia need Caesarism (/= Bonapartism) so as not to degenerate like it did when socialist primitive accumulation was pursued? By this, I mean a system of "two Bolshevik parties" or more, each pandering to a specific class.
The Bolshevik peasant party, a Bolshevized version of scattered remnants of both SR parties, would be the Party of Order, would continue anti-bourgeois economic and political measures, and would centralize the executive:
http://vimeo.com/14808875
It's true that the peasantry is forced to decide between the fundamental classes. But it's not true that, because the peasantry is forced to decide between the fundamental classes, it cannot find political representation or act in support of autonomous peasant goals, that is to say, patriarchalism, the setting up of an absolute ruler, a cult of personality whether it's of Lenin or Saddam Hussein or Robert Mugabe.
Lenin himself would probably belong to this Party of Order. His fashion statement of wearing a Stalin-like khaki tunic later in his life instead of his more notable suit-vest-tie attire topped with a cap could have been a reflection of which class he was OK with as the dominant class in the Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry, not to mention a sign of potential for walking in the footsteps of the Julius Caesar of people's history (http://www.revleft.com/vb/caesarism-marx-wrongi-t112185/index.html).
The Bolshevik urban petit-bourgeois party would fill the gap left behind by the Menshevik-Internationalists, who garnered support from (then-)petit-bourgeois intellectuals and notable working-class segments. It would be the Party of Liberty, and would be headed by the likes of Bukharin - whose Right Turn was more about the interests of the urban petit-bourgeoisie than "Peasants, Enrich Yourselves!"
The Bolshevik managerial party would be the smallest but most well-placed party on the bloc. It would be headed by the likes of Trotsky and Preobrazhensky, and perhaps even by the likes of Stalin and Molotov, too (given their coordinator-based industrialization turn).
The Bolshevik worker party would return to the original purpose of the old Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party: the DOTP. It would be headed more by the likes of Myasnikov than by the likes of Tomsky, unless the latter did a left turn of sorts.
Thoughts?
Did Russia need Caesarism (/= Bonapartism) so as not to degenerate like it did when socialist primitive accumulation was pursued? By this, I mean a system of "two Bolshevik parties" or more, each pandering to a specific class.
The Bolshevik peasant party, a Bolshevized version of scattered remnants of both SR parties, would be the Party of Order, would continue anti-bourgeois economic and political measures, and would centralize the executive:
http://vimeo.com/14808875
It's true that the peasantry is forced to decide between the fundamental classes. But it's not true that, because the peasantry is forced to decide between the fundamental classes, it cannot find political representation or act in support of autonomous peasant goals, that is to say, patriarchalism, the setting up of an absolute ruler, a cult of personality whether it's of Lenin or Saddam Hussein or Robert Mugabe.
Lenin himself would probably belong to this Party of Order. His fashion statement of wearing a Stalin-like khaki tunic later in his life instead of his more notable suit-vest-tie attire topped with a cap could have been a reflection of which class he was OK with as the dominant class in the Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry, not to mention a sign of potential for walking in the footsteps of the Julius Caesar of people's history (http://www.revleft.com/vb/caesarism-marx-wrongi-t112185/index.html).
The Bolshevik urban petit-bourgeois party would fill the gap left behind by the Menshevik-Internationalists, who garnered support from (then-)petit-bourgeois intellectuals and notable working-class segments. It would be the Party of Liberty, and would be headed by the likes of Bukharin - whose Right Turn was more about the interests of the urban petit-bourgeoisie than "Peasants, Enrich Yourselves!"
The Bolshevik managerial party would be the smallest but most well-placed party on the bloc. It would be headed by the likes of Trotsky and Preobrazhensky, and perhaps even by the likes of Stalin and Molotov, too (given their coordinator-based industrialization turn).
The Bolshevik worker party would return to the original purpose of the old Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party: the DOTP. It would be headed more by the likes of Myasnikov than by the likes of Tomsky, unless the latter did a left turn of sorts.
Thoughts?