How would the state step down?

[safeduck]

Lets just assume for a minuite : most of the world have achieved socialism. We are now ready to govern ourselves and transition into communism. Would the state really step down? Why would they agree to throw away their power and if they would, how?
thanks.

[Bronco]

No of course they wouldn't voluntarily give up their power, that's what the Revolution is for

[PC LOAD LETTER]

You're going to get different answers depending on the specific tendency of the person replying.

I assume you're addressing the Marxist-Leninist variation of socialism, in which case a Marxist-Leninist would be a better person to answer. I'd be more inclined to side with Bronco; if the coercive state exists, the revolution failed or is incomplete.

[Ostrinski]

There would be nothing to necessitate this "stepping down," as it would cease to exist as soon as it became obsolete.

[Caj]

it would cease to exist as soon as it became obsolete.

Lol :laugh:

And how exactly is that going to happen? Do you seriously believe that the State is just going to vanish the moment it becomes obsolete? That's absurd in the highest degree.

[Ocean Seal]

It doesn't step down, it doesn't immediately just disappear when it becomes obsolete, but through institutions of workers power the state becomes less and less present in affairs and if it is less necessary, less labor time is allocated to its interests and thus it *slowly* fades into the background.

[GPDP]

Well, I would imagine if the revolution was genuinely socialist, then the socialist state would be controlled by the workers themselves. Thus, if the workers decide to dismantle the state, then it will be dismantled, simple as. Talking about a situation where the state in socialism refuses to dissolve is absurd for that very reason. There wouldn't be an entrenched bureaucracy separate from the workers, and if there is, it's not really socialism, now is it?

This is the point where anarchists go on to say "well, then that's not a state." IMO, it becomes a semantical argument at this point.

[Caj]

This is the point where anarchists go on to say "well, then that's not a state." IMO, it becomes a semantical argument at this point.

Exactly. It seems that the differences between anarchists and left-communists/libertarian Marxists really boil down to differences regarding the definitions of terms like "State" and "political".

[Ostrinski]

The state doesn't exist to perpetuate its own existence. It's an instrument of force used to secure the rule of an economic class. It is not a thing that exists independent of all other phenomena, it can only exist where there is analogue for it. Power is exercised, not held. So if there is no bourgeois-contra threat, state power will not need to be exercised, ergo it will cease to exist.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Exactly. It seems that the differences between anarchists and left-communists/libertarian Marxists really boil down to differences regarding the definitions of terms like "State" and "political".
A post I made a few days ago addressing this issue:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2342044&postcount=23

I referenced the same analysis Brospierre just brought up as well.

[Rooster]

The state is an expression of class society. The whole point of being a communist is to eliminate class society, that means eliminating the state. Not to perpetuate it and then just decide one day "we have socialism!". The revolution goes hand in hand with the destruction of the state, the reduction of it's powers which is centralised power. A state simply can't just be abolished.

[Lanky Wanker]

If "it" doesn't "step down", we'll just ignore it and watch it die on its own while we get on with our lives.

[Thirsty Crow]

Lol :laugh:

And how exactly is that going to happen? Do you seriously believe that the State is just going to vanish the moment it becomes obsolete? That's absurd in the highest degree.
You do realize that you're pronouncing the materialist conception of history as "absurd in the highest degree" here? Or do anarchists consider themselves something other than materialists?

To expand a bit on this, the proletarian state, the network of territorial councils and workplace committees (I support workers' control - not in the sense of "oversight"), with its procedures of delegation, and the structure of the armed forces become obsolete when:

1) there is no longer a threat of capitalist restoration and/or capitalist aggression

2) when the division of labour receeds

The second condition is dependant upon the conscious efforts of communities as a whole, and policies aiming at this goal (reorganizjng education, job rotation, increase in labour productivity) must be carried through, in my opinion. Here there is a tough nut to crack: the resistance of the stratum we call intelligentsia (one could speak of a new petite bourgeoisie in fact, especially in relation to contemporary capitalist societies), whose privileges and social standing, which implies also a cosncious political action, will most probably be an obstacle.

Of course, I don't identify my politics as Marxist-Leninist, so the basic premise of the thread doesn't really apply, but I must say that I find your approach really simplistic and not at all productive.

[citizen of industry]

Absent of class, without economic inequality or nation states, functions of "state" relate to the production/distribution/conservation of goods and resources. This can be done inclusively and democratically. Without economic inequality there is no incentive for "power." Absent economic inequality, or scarcity, there are no politics, no countries, no armies and no sources or motivation to power.

Take for example a king with a personal brothel, an army and a bunch of gold. The prostitutes work in his brothel because they make better wages there then elsewhere. The soldiers for the same reason, plus they are necessary because the king has to defend his territory/expand it if there is scarcity. The king needs the gold to pay. Without terrotorial divisions and scarcity, the gold is just metal, the prostitutes and soldiers prefer another line of work, and there is no incentive to be king. His administrative functions have to be taken up by the community.

[Revolution starts with U]

If the materialist position denies that people sometimes seek power for power's sake, than the materialist position denies material reality. I know this is true because I have sought power simply becuase I liked being powerful, it gives you a good feeling, one feels important.

I actually agree with how you, Menocchio, said the process will work, how the state will "wither" away as people take more of a stake in their lives and the division of labor begins to be less personal. I just point out the "power for power's sake" side of things to remind people that there will be tyrants claiming socialism, all the while working against the establishment of socialism and the dissolution of the state.

If you think there are not members of this board, your unions, or other organizations who, if given the chance, would stifle genuine worker power to protect their own privelaged position... I think you're being naive.

[Thirsty Crow]

I

I actually agree with how you, Menocchio, said the process will work, how the state will "wither" away as people take more of a stake in their lives and the division of labor begins to be less personal.
I'm not really sure what this means.
To clarify my position a bit, I was referring to the division of labour between cognitive (which implies administrative positions) and physical labour. Which doesn't mean I think there will no longer be a need for hard toil (though, what is very important in my opinion is to automate as many jobs as possible), or that people will sit on their assess all day long and write poetry (not that I think you attributed this view to me, you clearly did not do so), but rather that the social organization of labour will be, and must be, radically refashioned (as I've said, job roatations, constant and conscious pressures from the very beginning of the dictatorship of the proletariat, shortening of the workday, reorganizing education and so on).

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm not really sure what this means.
To clarify my position a bit, I was referring to the division of labour between cognitive (which implies administrative positions) and physical labour. Which doesn't mean I think there will no longer be a need for hard toil (though, what is very important in my opinion is to automate as many jobs as possible), or that people will sit on their assess all day long and write poetry (not that I think you attributed this view to me, you clearly did not do so), but rather that the social organization of labour will be, and must be, radically refashioned (as I've said, job roatations, constant and conscious pressures from the very beginning of the dictatorship of the proletariat, shortening of the workday, reorganizing education and so on).

By personal I meant singular, as in one guy does this, others do that. I mean, when people start being worker AND boss, and things along those lines.
We're on the same page here, at least on this issue.

[Zav]

There would be nothing to necessitate this "stepping down," as it would cease to exist as soon as it became obsolete.
The State is obsolete now, and spends much of its resources trying to make people think otherwise. Those in power will resist their removal, probably to the death, and so the State must be willfully abolished.

[Ravachol]

The state will never 'step down' nor will it whither away. The state, by definition, is an organ that separates representative from represented and through the machinations of it's apparatuses enforces passivity and management of society through the elite (bureaucratic or otherwise) that controls it's offices. It's functioning is directly antithetical to 'people taking a progressively bigger stake in their own lives' and the very notion of communism, where social affairs are unmediated and administrated collectively. The state as a 'transition phase' will mean 'Communism in 20 years' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_20_years) for ages and ages.

[runequester]

There will always be some manner of administration and governance. When the state "disappears", it does not likely mean that there is no administration (such would render a communist society impossible, since resources could not be distributed throughout society), but that such administration is transparent to the citizens and workers, and that it is governed by them directly. In other words, a true, evolved state of democracy rather than the crony-democracy we experience today.

[Lanky Wanker]

In other words, a true, evolved state of democracy rather than the crony-democracy we experience today.

This is what I don't understand about people and their ideas of "democracy" we have now. They say we, as humans, need a leader and that we are incapable of ruling our own lives, yet when the government RULES they start crying for democracy.

[Renegade Saint]

To answer the question "when will the state go away?" You have to answer the question "why do states exist in the first place?" Once that reason is dealt when then the state can wither away. From a marxist perspective all states are a product of irreconcilable class antagonisms. Precisely because those difference are irreconcilable states are formed to allow one class to rule over the other(s). So the state will wither away in parallel with classes withering away. To say the state is "obsolete now" one has to believe that states are not instruments of class rule or that we don't need any class rule in the first place. Both of which seem silly to me.

[Pretty Flaco]

In socialism, the state is organized by the working class. There shouldn't be any need for it to step down if it's truly a body of the working class.

[Caj]

To expand a bit on this, the proletarian state, the network of territorial councils and workplace committees (I support workers' control - not in the sense of "oversight"), with its procedures of delegation, and the structure of the armed forces become obsolete when:

1) there is no longer a threat of capitalist restoration and/or capitalist aggression

2) when the division of labour receeds

The second condition is dependant upon the conscious efforts of communities as a whole, and policies aiming at this goal (reorganizjng education, job rotation, increase in labour productivity) must be carried through, in my opinion. Here there is a tough nut to crack: the resistance of the stratum we call intelligentsia (one could speak of a new petite bourgeoisie in fact, especially in relation to contemporary capitalist societies), whose privileges and social standing, which implies also a cosncious political action, will most probably be an obstacle.

Your conception of the DotP seems to be very libertarian and non-hierarchical. Thus, to most anarchists it wouldn't constitute a state. I was under the impression that you advocated a Leninist-style DotP because one often hears them say things like, "The state will wither away when it's no longer necessary" (which of course is whenever the State says so, i.e., never).


Of course, I don't identify my politics as Marxist-Leninist, so the basic premise of the thread doesn't really apply

I retract what I said. I was under the impression that you were.

[Misanthrope]

Replace step-down with killed.

[Zulu]

The state will become redundant and disappear as soon as the last one human in the world becomes a conscious communist "New Man". Until then, the state will remain as a means of prevention of a bourgeois counter-revolution. So you see, such an ideal situation probably is not going to present itself for a few hundred years, even if the world revolution takes place tomorrow.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm amazed that, time and again, 'revolutionary' Socialists believe that, post- the initial overthrow of Capitalism, the state - an inherent obstacle to Socialism and worker's democracy - will 'wither away'; it's an incredibly naive, reformist mindset.

Rightly, the OP hints that the state will never voluntarily give up power. We've seen it time and again in history, and for those of us who didn't live through the cold war or before, the Arab Spring - in particular the events in Egypt - with SCAF and the old Mubarak bureaucracy - is living proof that the state wields enormous power and those who control it will not give up the power voluntarily.

Take from that what you will.

[kuros]

It would't that is the problem with marxist leninism

[Ostrinski]

The proletarian state is only a de facto state, not a formal one. It doesn't need to be established, as it naturally develops. Conversely, it doesn't need to be dismantled if it loses its analogue.

[GPDP]

I'm amazed that, time and again, 'revolutionary' Socialists believe that, post- the initial overthrow of Capitalism, the state - an inherent obstacle to Socialism and worker's democracy - will 'wither away'; it's an incredibly naive, reformist mindset.

Rightly, the OP hints that the state will never voluntarily give up power. We've seen it time and again in history, and for those of us who didn't live through the cold war or before, the Arab Spring - in particular the events in Egypt - with SCAF and the old Mubarak bureaucracy - is living proof that the state wields enormous power and those who control it will not give up the power voluntarily.

Take from that what you will.

And I'm amazed that some people keep ignoring points on the socialist state such as the one I made, and instead choose to talk past them and repeat the same old tired strawmen about how us evil statists don't get it.

[tachosomoza]

Lets just assume for a minuite : most of the world have achieved socialism. We are now ready to govern ourselves and transition into communism. Would the state really step down? Why would they agree to throw away their power and if they would, how?
thanks.

No, they'd be knocked down and executed. Along with the fascist collaborators, remnants of the bourgeois, and traitors.

[Tim Finnegan]

How would the state step down?
We'll either use a mechanical trapdoor or just kick the stool out from under them, depending on the resources we have to hand.


The proletarian state is only a de facto state, not a formal one.
What's the distinction?

[Psy]

Lets just assume for a minuite : most of the world have achieved socialism. We are now ready to govern ourselves and transition into communism. Would the state really step down? Why would they agree to throw away their power and if they would, how?
thanks.

They would agree due to worker militancy even within the forces of the worker state. Meaning if workers start making a big deal about no longer wanting the worker state, it would effect the armed forces of the workers state.

Hopefully the conscientious of the workers state at the time would be that forced retirement is in their best self-interest compared to resisting, and worker society would be able to negotiate the terms of their retirement peacefully.

[Ostrinski]

What's the distinction?The proletarian state is only a state in that it meets the Marxian criteria for what constitutes a state. A formal state is established inorganically, with a bourgeois constitution and all the bells and whistles, and is put in place for the direct or indirect purpose of enforcing class society. A proletarian state only exists to safeguard the revolutionary process. As the formal bourgeois state develops artificially and is installed for a specific purpose, the proletarian state develops naturally as a pragmatic means of addressing the question of counter-revolution.

The anarchists saying that they would attack the worker's state under all circumstances are no better than the Stalinists saying that they would execute anarchists under the same circumstances.

[Q]

I always find these topics a little saddening in how many self-proclaimed revolutionaries simply don't understand what a state is. Not anything with a form of hierarchy is equal to the state, you know.

Runequester and Renegade Saint provided valuable points that can help us understand though and I'll expand a little on the basis they already provided.

It is obviously true that the state is a result of class society and within capitalism we see a state where a tiny minority (the capitalists) is kept in power by this state. So yes, the state is a result of irreconcilable class antagonisms, as Renegade Saint already explained. Within capitalism, this results in a state where there is a highly stratified, top-down, form of state. In a previous post, I put it like this:


From a communist point of view, the current state system is a result of our class society in that the state is designed for a minority class in particular to rule, in its own interests. This has led to complicated hierarchies, a theatrical appearance of "democracy", an unjust justice system and specialised bureaucratic machines.

A communist would argue for the overthrow of this state, as simply taking over that state will simply repeat the limits already set, that is to stay within the system of minority rule (aka institutional corruption). Therefore we need a radical new kind of state, where the majority class rules and one that is only a "state" in the sense that it keeps other classes (such as the small capitalists and the middle layers, holding monopolies over skills and knowledge) out of monopolising power to themselves. In normal situations this simply requires an actual democracy, where the majority (which consists of working class people in any industrialised country) rules society in its own interests - that is, the interests of the collective.

This is the essence of the Democratic Republic in the way Marx and Engels were talking about it.

So, in other words, the capitalist state would need to be destroyed if the working class is to rule. The socialist "state" will 'wither away' in the sense that it'll collapse into society itself as the radical democratic society no longer has any need for solving "irreconcilable class antagonisms" when classes cease to exist. The remaining classes after the revolution, outside the working class, will be assimilated part by part into the proletariat, for example through vastly expanded adult education programs.

So, the core of it all is the battle for democracy, as Runequester already made the point. And this question of democracy is closely linked to the party question, incidentally.

You see, voluntarism and spontaneism (i.e. relying on the voluntary effort of the revolutionaries / relying on the spontaneous action of the working class in taking power) will never win the day. What is needed is the conscious action of the working class as a class that are fighting for socialism. This implies long term work. I also wrote about this point elsewhere:


The solution is the organised working class, fighting for political power as a class. So the emancipation of the working class can only be done through the fight for communism and the fight for communism can only be done through the emancipation of the working class.

Such a party-movement is currently out of our reach, so how do we get there? If the left can unite in a common political organisation, we can make a serious impact in society. Such a common political organisation can only be based on programmatical - as opposed to theoretical - unity. The programme should be a rather simple document explaining how to get from where we are now (capitalism) towards where we want to be (workers power and communism after that) and the steps needed to strengthen the working class as an objective force for itself, to suit it for its historic task.

But left unity is outside our reach as well. Sectism prevails across the board. And on the basis of the things as they are today, I don't see much positive coming from a unity of, say, the SWP and SPEW in the UK. Like Socialist Alliance around the turn of the century, it would disintegrate as soon as one group tried to get the upperhand.

So, where does that leave us? For what can we fight today?

What we need on the left is a paradigm shift and some groups here and there are positive actors in this much needed process of, for lack of a better term, a "cultural revolution" on the far left. The fight for political freedom starts within the far left, today. To get anywhere forward, we need to nurish a culture of critique, thinking, education and debate. That is, as far as I can see, our starting point today.
In other words, the fight for democracy is concrete and starts in the working class movement (and the left!) today. Because only when the working class can think, act and organise for itself, by itself, can it hope to be a real ruling class. I.e. a class that actually has the capabilities, education and experience of ruling a society.

Democracy is the core of communist politics and the core for human liberation.

[daft punk]

If most countries are socialist, the state they have will be mainly to defend against the remaining capitalist countries.

Socialism presupposed workers democracy and the elimination of capitalism, so there is not much need for a state within a socialist country.

It's a gradual process. socialism and communism are not separate things really. We dont even need the word communism these days, we can just call it socialism. it would be a long transition, say a couple of generations.

You get the end product when you have production at a high enough level to make everything free and abolish money, when most of the world is socialist and in a federation so countries are becoming obsolete, when most people are involved in planning the economy, and where few people are full time planners/politicians.

So obviously you have to avoid getting a bureaucratic elite like in Stalinist USSR. Once you get that it only goes via another workers revolution or it will end up capitalist again.

[Thirsty Crow]

Your conception of the DotP seems to be very libertarian and non-hierarchical. Thus, to most anarchists it wouldn't constitute a state.I really don't subscribe to the theoretical, sometimes outright philosophical (which is damaging IMO) notions of libertarianism and hierarchy. My political convictions follow almost solely from what I perceive as the social and political "demands" following from class dictatorship. I'd hope that anarchists are willing to engage politics in a similar manner.


I was under the impression that you advocated a Leninist-style DotP because one often hears them say things like, "The state will wither away when it's no longer necessary" (which of course is whenever the State says so, i.e., never).Yes, I'm familiar with what you're describing, and I do realize that this is often a cheap cop-out. Though, as I've stated, there is merit to the notion of the necessity of the proletarian state. Military and security threat being one of the most likely situations, there should be in place a transitional mechanism of decision-making which would shorten the duration of the deliberation process. Furthermore, the very political character of the proletarian order is necessary as well, until the need for class politics vanishes (you might recall how the early political regime of the bourgeoisie in ascent, geared against the remains of feudalism, was absolved as well in new bourgoies regimes which clearly recognized the new threat, the potential social revolution; in other words, the anti-feudal struggles, with their politics, are mostly just a historical record now, they don't play any social role because there is no social or political necessity for them to do so - similarly, we can expect something like this to happen with world communism).


I retract what I said. I was under the impression that you were.Good that you did, 'cause you know, I'd be insulted if you didn't :p

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm not a Marxist but here is what I perceive the Marxist view is.

The state is systematic armed violence to supress the exploited class. A workers' state would be the administration by the workers themselves, that is, it would be a state controlled by the workers from below. Once class antagonisms die out, the need for systematic armed violence becomes obsolete and what remains is the administration of economic and social affairs.

As Engels put it (bolded):


"State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production."

The state will not give up power, as it is controlled from below in the first place.

The precondition of a workers' state, therefore, is that it is controlled from below. If it is not controlled from below by the workers it will not die off, therefore 'Stalinist' states as exist and have existed were never going to wither away as they were controlled from above--that is, it creates a new ruling class, and therefore class antagonisms, and therefore the need for a state.

[StockholmSyndrome]

It seems a few of you, especially "Anarchy!" should re-read (or read) this:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

And learn what Lenin actually said. I am not a Marxist-Leninist, though I identify as a
"Leninist" in the tradition of the Italian Left.

[Ermo Kruus]

The state will always create hierarchies and maintain them, whether it exists in a socialist society or a capitalist one. Hell, why do you guys think the state exists in the first place? As long as the state exist there will always be a dominant elite class which will continue to exploit the people and defend their own interests rather than the people's. Do you guys really think Stalin and the entire Soviet elite would volunterely step down if the workers thought the world was ready for a stateless, classless society? Of course not, the ruling class would never want to lose its privileges voluntarily.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Also read this section:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm#s4

Really, you should just read the entirety of State and Revolution.

[daft punk]

The state will always create hierarchies and maintain them, whether it exists in a socialist society or a capitalist one. Hell, why do you guys think the state exists in the first place? As long as the state exist there will always be a dominant elite class which will continue to exploit the people and defend their own interests rather than the people's. Do you guys really think Stalin and the entire Soviet elite would volunterely step down if the workers thought the world was ready for a stateless, classless society? Of course not, the ruling class would never want to lose its privileges voluntarily.

The state is necessary to defend the ruling class. The Bolsheviks created a workers state to defend the revolution form the capitalists and feudal landlords etc. They defeated them militarily by 1921. They should them have started implementing workers democracy, slowly but surely.

However the revolution was isolated in a backward country, meaning socialism was impossible.

They implemented the NEP as a temporary retreat.

The plan was to tax the rich, build state industry and win over the small peasants into subsidised co-operatives.

The big threats apart from capitalist restoration came from bureaucracy and red tape. The Bolsheviks inherited thousands of bureaucrats from the Tsar's regime.

Stalin formed a block with Bukharin and for a while (til they realised their mistake, too late) Kamenev and Zinoviev, and seized power.

He then abandoned all Lenin's plans and did the opposite, allowing the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor.

Trotsky warned that if that happened, the rich would then bid for power.

They did, so Stalin forcibly collectivised.

[Rooster]

The state is necessary to defend the ruling class. The Bolsheviks created a workers state to defend the revolution form the capitalists and feudal landlords etc.

Not sure how accurate these statments are. A state is a dictatorship of a class(es) over other class(es). Not sure if that makes much of a difference though. It might be I can't be bothered to go through it in my head. Secondly, I'm also not sure how you could argue that there were still feual landlords. There were landlords but I disagree that they were feudal. Only culturally could they be considered feudal, not economically.


However the revolution was isolated in a backward country, meaning socialism was impossible.

I'm not taking a dig at you, but in general, I wonder how many people know what this phrase means and the implication of it and how many just spout it off without knowing the meaning.


The big threats apart from capitalist restoration came from bureaucracy and red tape. The Bolsheviks inherited thousands of bureaucrats from the Tsar's regime.

Capitalist restoration wasn't possible because it was capitalist pretty much the whole time. In this sense, what the Bolsheviks achieved was a political grab of power but still maintained capitalist relations in a country where capital was low on the ground. Bureaucracy begins with a lack of abundance, with lines at stores and with a policeman standing at the line. What was needed was really the revolution in the more prosperous west, the easy solution, to allow that abundance to come into Russia.


He then abandoned all Lenin's plans and did the opposite, allowing the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor.

This was due to the struggle within the party and of class interests in general (which allowed for the struggle to happen). Mostly it was a way for Stalin to try and oust opposition, particuarly with Trotsky who was arguing for an end of the NEP and an introduction of a five year plan. Of course, once they were ousted, Stalin then adopted the idea anyway.


Trotsky warned that if that happened, the rich would then bid for power.

Pretty sure Trotsky argued that it would increase the confidence and the power of the small time produers, leading to them starving the towns and agitating. I don't think they made a bid for power.


They did, so Stalin forcibly collectivised.

Yeah but, why? I don't think they made a bid for power. Pretty sure the reason was to expand capitalist relations and eliminate the peasantry as a class, just like how capitalists have performed primative accumlation for centuraies before hand with land clearences and such.

[daft punk]

I'm not taking a dig at you, but in general, I wonder how many people know what this phrase means and the implication of it and how many just spout it off without knowing the meaning.
Well, where to start. First, it's basic Marxist ABC. Marx said that without the right development economically the old crap would resurface. People fight for stuff if it is in short supply. In fact, before April 1917, the Bolsheviks didnt even believe that a socialist revolution could start in Russia, only Trotsky really believed it. Lenin came back and scolded the party for it's support of the Provisional Government, but few really agreed with him.

There are various reasons why you can't build socialism in a backward country. The main one is that socialism is built by the working class, and in a backward country the working class is very small.

It could only work if it spread to advanced countries and they in turn helped Russia. The other main reason is they didnt know how to run the country and had to use the Tsar's massive bureaucracy. Dont forget also that not many people were literate.




Capitalist restoration wasn't possible because it was capitalist pretty much the whole time. In this sense, what the Bolsheviks achieved was a political grab of power but still maintained capitalist relations in a country where capital was low on the ground. Bureaucracy begins with a lack of abundance, with lines at stores and with a policeman standing at the line. What was needed was really the revolution in the more prosperous west, the easy solution, to allow that abundance to come into Russia.
They definitely needed revolution in the west. Bureaucracy is definitely fostered by lack of abundance. It wasnt capitalist the whole time. The workers had control of the state led by a communist party, and were trying to build socialism as best they could. They had to retreat from war communism to the NEP but that was supposed to be temporary. The idea was to build state enterprises and encourage the poor peasants into cooperatives as steps towards socialism. It was a transitional economy, not socialist but not capitalist either. By capitalist restoration I mean political power, political revolution. Control of the state by the bourgeois.




This was due to the struggle within the party and of class interests in general (which allowed for the struggle to happen). Mostly it was a way for Stalin to try and oust opposition, particuarly with Trotsky who was arguing for an end of the NEP and an introduction of a five year plan. Of course, once they were ousted, Stalin then adopted the idea anyway.
exactly




Pretty sure Trotsky argued that it would increase the confidence and the power of the small time produers, leading to them starving the towns and agitating. I don't think they made a bid for power.

Trotsky, 1927, Platform of the Opposition:

"In the class struggle now going on in the country, the party must stand, not only in words but in deeds, at the head of the farm-hands, the poor peasants, and the basic mass of the middle peasants, and organize them against the exploiting aspirations of the kulak."

"The task of the party in relation to the growing kulak stratum ought to consist in the all-sided limitation of their efforts at exploitation. We must permit no departures from that article in our constitution depriving the exploiting class of electoral rights in the soviets. The following measures are necessary: A steeply progressive tax system; legislative measures for the defence of hired labour and the regulation of the wages of agricultural workers; a correct class policy in the matter of land division and utilization; the same thing in the matter of supplying the country with tractors and other implements of production."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1927/opposition/ch03.htm


"Telegrams are pouring in from numerous parts of the Soviet Union with the news that deeds of arson and murders of active Communists are being perpetrated by the Kulaks… Soviet farms, village libraries and Soviet bureaus have been burned down by the Kulaks in their fierce opposition against all measures undertaken by our Communist Party and our Soviet Government… Murderous attacks have been perpetrated against Communist village school teachers and social workers, women as well as men… Seven murders and four attempted murders took place in public assemblies or in Soviet bureaus. The roll of our Communist dead contains the names of four Chairmen of local Soviets and one Secretary… A destructive blow at the Kulaks must be delivered immediately! ”

— Izvestia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izvestia), November 1928[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union#cite_note-6)"

"This demand for more grain resulted in the reintroduction of requisitioning which was resisted in rural areas. In 1928 there was a 2 million ton shortfall in grains purchased by the state. Stalin claimed the grain had been produced but was being hoarded by "kulaks." Instead of raising the price, the Politburo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo) adopted an emergency measure to requisition 2.5 million tons of grain."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union#The_crisis_of _1928




Yeah but, why? I don't think they made a bid for power. Pretty sure the reason was to expand capitalist relations and eliminate the peasantry as a class, just like how capitalists have performed primative accumlation for centuraies before hand with land clearences and such.

He didn't expand capitalist relations he collectivised. He might have allowed capitalist restoration but everyone was aware that the Left Opposition had warned of this for years so he had to basically implement their policies.

Call it a bid for power or not, it was a battle between the kulaks and Stalin.