The good ol' socialist state question

[Lanky Wanker]

Back to basics :unsure:, but oh well.




Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Doesn't China do these things? Didn't the USSR? I don't want to turn this into one of those "why wasn't the Soviet Union socialist?" threads, but people just seem to throw "STATE CAPITALISM! THE WORKERS DIDN'T OWN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!!!" at the USSR. I'm obviously misunderstanding this part:


5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

What don't I understand here (besides everything)?

[Ostrinski]

This is the dictatorship of the proletariat, not socialism. There is no state under socialism.

[Caj]

This wasn't Marx's conception of socialism, but an early (1848) conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat. He later regretted having put this section in the Manifesto and argued that the dictatorship of the proletariat would resemble the Paris Commune, "which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term" (Engels).

[Rooster]

Engels was the one that said that the Paris Commune was the DotP, or at least the form that it would take, while Marx said it was not socialist nor could it be. I think it's pretty clear from reading this sort of thing and their stuff in general where capitalism ends and socialism begins. Would you say that China or the USSR followed the example of the Paris Commune? That's a question that isn't asked often.

[Caj]

Marx said it was not socialist nor could it be.

Where did he say that exactly? And did he say that because the Commune wasn't a proletarian dictatorship or for some other reason(s)?

[Bronco]

Murray Bookchin talked about this in his Insights and Problems (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/comman.html) of the manifesto


In The Manifesto, the proletarian "state" that will replace the bourgeois "political power" and initially make the most "despotic inroads on the right of property" will consist of the proletariat raised to "the position of ruling class." More specifically:

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class, and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible. (emphasis added, p. 504)

This can hardly be called a state in either the usual Marxian or the social anarchist sense of the word. In fact, the implications of this extraordinary formulation have vexed even the ablest of socialist theorists, anarchist as well as Marxist--and they dogged Marx and Engels themselves as a problem up to the last years of their lives. How could an entire class, the proletariat organized as a "movement" that would eventually speak for society as a whole, institutionalize itself into a "political" (or state) power? By what concrete institutional forms would this class, whose revolution in contrast to all previous ones would represent "the interest of the immense majority" (p. 495), exercise its economic and political sovereignty?

Until the Paris Commune of 1871, Marx and Engels probably intended for the "political power" that the proletariat would establish to be nothing more than a republic, that is, a representative form of government, albeit one rooted in political rights such as recall. Anarchist critics of Marx pointed out with considerable effect that any system of representation would become a statist interest in its own right, one that at best would work against the interests of the working classes (including the peasantry), and that at worst would be a dictatorial power as vicious as the worst bourgeois state machines. Indeed, with political power reinforced by economic power in the form of a nationalized economy, a "workers' republic" might well prove to be a despotism (to use one of Bakunin's more favorite terms) of unparalleled oppression...

...But the Paris Commune of 1871 came as a breath of fresh air to Marx and Engels, who, a generation after The Manifesto was published, embraced the Commune as the institutional structure that the proletariat would produce between a capitalist and a communist society, or as Marx put it in his Critique of the Gotha Program, "the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."2 Marx praised the Commune for introducing the right to recall deputies to the Communal Council (the equivalent of the city council of Paris), the adoption of a skilled worker's wage as reimbursement for participating in the Council, the arming of the people, and very significantly, a "working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time."3

He goes on but I don't want to be too obnoxious and quote too much, but as rooster said Bookchin does point out that in time Marx went back on such a favourable account of the commune, as can be seen in his letter (http://solomon.tinyurl.alexanderstreet.com/cgi-bin/asp/philo/soth/getdoc.pl?S10022505-D000043) to Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis:


You may, perhaps, refer me to the Paris Commune but, aside from the fact that this was merely an uprising of one city in exceptional circumstances, the majority of the Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it have been.

[Rooster]

Where did he say that exactly? And did he say that because the Commune wasn't a proletarian dictatorship or for some other reason(s)?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/letters/81_02_22.htm


Perhaps you will point to the Paris Commune; but apart from the fact that this was merely the rising of a town under exceptional conditions, the majority of the Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be.It wasn't socialist as there still were classes. The bourgeois still existed as a class. The DotP is to allow some real democratic debate to go on about how society is to be formed. Most of the people there at the time could not be described as socialists either. Sorry for the short answer but it's late and my wife wants me to come to bed.

Ug shite, beaten to the punch.

[Lanky Wanker]

I always thought the Communist Manifesto wasn't the greatest piece of writing to look to, especially when new to leftism. Cheers for the answers.

[ArrowLance]

I always thought the Communist Manifesto wasn't the greatest piece of writing to look to, especially when new to leftism. Cheers for the answers.

This is why the Communist Manifesto is a go to document for people new to the left:


Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other; bourgeoisie and proletariat.

[. . .]

Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the progress o industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper , and pauperism develops more rapidly the population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an overriding law. It is unfit t o rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.


The wonderful language and no-nonsense explanations of many basic principles make the Communist Manifesto an immortal document.

[Rooster]

I always thought the Communist Manifesto wasn't the greatest piece of writing to look to, especially when new to leftism. Cheers for the answers.

I think it's okay as an exposition of classes, class struggle and the materialist method as applied to history. I'm not sure how much of the document was compromised by the league though. There are of course other works by them from later on that are of a greater benefit, I think. Such as Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific or even Marx's Wage-Labour and Capital. But the Manifesto probably the first thing most people read in regards to Marx though and I think just being presented it on it's own isn't really that useful. The Norton Critical Edition edited by Frederic L. Bender is quite a good copy. It has a detailed introduction and a whole bunch of essays and such from a large variety of communists at the back.

[Brosip Tito]

I think it's okay as an exposition of classes, class struggle and the materialist method as applied to history. I'm not sure how much of the document was compromised by the league though. There are of course other works by them from later on that are of a greater benefit, I think. Such as Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific or even Marx's Wage-Labour and Capital. But the Manifesto probably the first thing most people read in regards to Marx though and I think just being presented it on it's own isn't really that useful. The Norton Critical Edition edited by Frederic L. Bender is quite a good copy. It has a detailed introduction and a whole bunch of essays and such from a large variety of communists at the back.
Engels' "The Principles of Communism" would be a much better source for new leftists, in my opinion.

[Rooster]

Engels' "The Principles of Communism" would be a much better source for new leftists, in my opinion.

That's fine as well but wasn't it a draft for the Manifesto? And again, I'm not sure how much the demands or how much of the document was edited or changed by the Communist League. I do think it's a good little piece of work, though. And it's certainly more clear than the Manifesto in some regards. I quite like section 19:



— 19 —
Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.


I do think though that you have to take into account their later works.

[Brosip Tito]

That's fine as well but wasn't it a draft for the Manifesto? And again, I'm not sure how much the demands or how much of the document was edited or changed by the Communist League. I do think it's a good little piece of work, though. And it's certainly more clear than the Manifesto in some regards.It was a source for the manifesto, but not a draft of it.


I quite like section 19:Yes, it is quite a good point for Stalinites to consider, eh?


I do think though that you have to take into account their later works.Quite agreed.

[daft punk]

Engels wrote Principles, then he suggested to Marx they rewrite it, and Manifesto is the result.

To answer the OP, the USSR wasnt socialism, wasnt state capitalist, it was a degenerated workers state.

[Thirsty Crow]

To answer the OP, the USSR wasnt socialism, wasnt state capitalist, it was a degenerated workers state.
Which actually tells us nothing about the structure of the economy or, indeed, whether the capitalist mode of production has been effectively abolished and replaced by the communist/socialist mode of production (in a single country).

It's a compromise which essentially looks at the political structure of a society (in a very unsatisfactory way) while disregarding the big problem of classes in production.

[Brosip Tito]

Engels wrote Principles, then he suggested to Marx they rewrite it, and Manifesto is the result.

To answer the OP, the USSR wasnt socialism, wasnt state capitalist, it was a degenerated workers state.I hold Trotsky to a high regard, even though I have disagreements. Don't jump down my throat because I don't hold him up as a god.

Just because property is statified, doesn't make it a workers' state. Trotsky's flaw was regarding the government of Stalin as a state that protected the social rule of the proletariat -- at least he implies that by referring to the state as a workers' state, which it was not.

We know the workers' organs of power, the soviets, were non-existent under Stalin.

Now, we look to the mode of production, whether exploitation occurred, etc. We see it as very much capitalist, with a state bourgeoisie, as opposed to a private bourgeoisie. The bureaucrats representing the privileged, exploiting class. Now, don't say they weren't all priveleged, because to an extent they were, regardless of threat of being killed or interned by Stalin. Some bourgeoisie faced the same under right wing dictators, if they did not receive sufficient support.

Again, when we look at the idea of a workers' state, we go back to Lenin's "State and Revolution". What three criteria did he set forth?


1) Control by the workers cannot be carried out by a state of bureaucrats but must be carried out by a state of armed workers. Control was not carried out by armed workers, but by a state of bureaucrats.


2) In a proletarian state all must be “bureaucrats” so that no one could be a bureaucrat. - This certainly wasn't the case.


3) The state should be so constituted that it begins to wither away and cannot but wither away. Didn't occur.

So, we see how the Stalinist state did not represent Lenin's idea of a workers' state at all. Trotsky deviates, wrongly so in my opinion, from Lenin by considering it a workers' state. he does this, due to his regard of the workers' state under Lenin, and disregarding how the counter revolution, did indeed remove the proletariat social rule.

Trotsky was wrong, and as many of his followers, such as Cliff, Dunayevksaya, and CLR James noted, the theory of a degenerated workers' state was indeed flawed.

A few reads that I would suggest, are:

Russia: A Marxist Analysis (https://epress.anu.edu.au/archive/cliff/works/1964/russia/index.htm),

The USSR is a Capitalist Society (http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1941/ussr-capitalist.htm),

An Analysis of Russian Economy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1942/russian-economy/index.htm),

Resolution on the Russian Question (http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1941/09/russia.htm).

[Yuppie Grinder]

Where did he say that exactly? And did he say that because the Commune wasn't a proletarian dictatorship or for some other reason(s)?
While the Communards led a genuinely proletarian movement, the material conditions of their situation were completely incompatible with socialism.

[Caj]

While the Communards led a genuinely proletarian movement, the material conditions of their situation were completely incompatible with socialism.

If that's the case, then it doesn't change what I said. The Commune was a proletarian dictatorship, albeit a failed one.

[Lanky Wanker]

I think it's okay as an exposition of classes, class struggle and the materialist method as applied to history. I'm not sure how much of the document was compromised by the league though. There are of course other works by them from later on that are of a greater benefit, I think. Such as Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific or even Marx's Wage-Labour and Capital. But the Manifesto probably the first thing most people read in regards to Marx though and I think just being presented it on it's own isn't really that useful. The Norton Critical Edition edited by Frederic L. Bender is quite a good copy. It has a detailed introduction and a whole bunch of essays and such from a large variety of communists at the back.

Those are better things to read, although I think the fancy words still throw a lot of people off. A friend at school asked me if it was worth giving the Manifesto a read and I said yeah, but he ended up telling me he had no idea what it was talking about. :lol: I think there are other writers who can explain things a fair bit clearer for newbies. I still fail to see how most of the people on here have any idea what all of these famous texts are trying to tell us, as they just confuse me most of the time... I guess I'm just a special learner.

[Rooster]

Those are better things to read, although I think the fancy words still throw a lot of people off. A friend at school asked me if it was worth giving the Manifesto a read and I said yeah, but he ended up telling me he had no idea what it was talking about. :lol: I think there are other writers who can explain things a fair bit clearer for newbies. I still fail to see how most of the people on here have any idea what all of these famous texts are trying to tell us, as they just confuse me most of the time... I guess I'm just a special learner.

I don't really understand the issue people have with the language of the Manifesto. :confused: I think it's probably one of Marx's more easier to read pieces. I'm actually interested about this; why do people have such a hard time with the Manifesto? Granted it's taken me some time to get to grips with some key concepts, but that came through time and re-reading. It took me forever to get through Capital. I really should read it again because it's been years but... when I look at it, I just can't bring myself to do it. I just don't have the time. Honest.

Incidentally, there are versions of the Manifesto written in plain, or updated, language. I haven't read any of them though and I can't testify at how good they are. Also, the common English version has a number of translation errors. Nothing that significant that I can think of but they are there none the less.

[Ostrinski]

I don't really understand the issue people have with the language of the Manifesto. :confused: I think it's probably one of Marx's more easier to read pieces. I'm actually interested about this; why do people have such a hard time with the Manifesto? Granted it's taken me some time to get to grips with some key concepts, but that came through time and re-reading. It took me forever to get through Capital. I really should read it again because it's been years but... when I look at it, I just can't bring myself to do it. I just don't have the time. Honest.At least we were blessed with something like the Manifesto, which is pretty much all you can ask for in terms of an introductory to Marxism. Given this fact it makes the fact that people spew bullshit in the name of Marxism even more tragic. Kind of puts into perspective how many people actually understand a lot of Marx's more advanced stuff (hell I don't either so I'm no trying to be elitist here).

I read Capital once, but skimmed over most of it. I only understood a minority of the chapters. Going about it more studiously is more of a chore and hard to find time for, I agree.

[Rooster]

I read Capital once, but skimmed over most of it. I only understood a minority of the chapters. Going about it more studiously is more of a chore and hard to find time for, I agree.

I used to travel a lot because of a job, so I'd be sitting on buses and trains for hours. That's how I managed to sort of get through it. I ended up just staring at the page and drifting off though, and then having to re-read it. I think with Capital, you have to approach it a certain way. I do think Harvey's companion book is a good place to start. I might start to re-read it again now that we're talking about it. I have a few days off soon. May as well spend them doing something productive (or putting shelves up).

[daft punk]

Which actually tells us nothing about the structure of the economy or, indeed, whether the capitalist mode of production has been effectively abolished and replaced by the communist/socialist mode of production (in a single country).

It's a compromise which essentially looks at the political structure of a society (in a very unsatisfactory way) while disregarding the big problem of classes in production.

Stalin abolished capitalism but he also abolished socialism.

There are 2 ways you can use the term 'workers state'. The first is a workers government as in 1917-24. The second is a collectivised economy as in 1928 onwards. To have socialism you need both. Unfortunately Stalin killed off the former before doing the latter. It was a planned economy (workers state, in the second meaning) and it was degenerated (in the first meaning).

[Lanky Wanker]

I don't really understand the issue people have with the language of the Manifesto. :confused: I think it's probably one of Marx's more easier to read pieces. I'm actually interested about this; why do people have such a hard time with the Manifesto? Granted it's taken me some time to get to grips with some key concepts, but that came through time and re-reading. It took me forever to get through Capital. I really should read it again because it's been years but... when I look at it, I just can't bring myself to do it. I just don't have the time. Honest.

Incidentally, there are versions of the Manifesto written in plain, or updated, language. I haven't read any of them though and I can't testify at how good they are. Also, the common English version has a number of translation errors. Nothing that significant that I can think of but they are there none the less.

Well it's not a problem for me now that I have a good understanding of what's being said and I understand the language, but for people new to politics/economics who aren't used to reading fancy stuff it's confusing to take in. I could understand why even the most well educated leftists would have problems reading Capital though; I tried a while ago (and bear in mind I only found out about the left around a year ago, and even then I didn't look into it properly) and I had to reread and explain everything to myself about a 300 times to understand even the first 5 - 10 pages or so. Luckily I found Marx's Capital for Beginners very useful and if anyone wanting to learn about communism asks me for material to read I point them towards that now.

[Thirsty Crow]

Stalin abolished capitalism but he also abolished socialism.
Wow, this must be one of the more contardictory, nonsensical statements I've seen on the boards recently.


There are 2 ways you can use the term 'workers state'. The first is a workers government as in 1917-24. The second is a collectivised economy as in 1928 onwards. To have socialism you need both. Unfortunately Stalin killed off the former before doing the latter. It was a planned economy (workers state, in the second meaning) and it was degenerated (in the first meaning).
It's funny how you uphold Lenin's death as the historical breking point of the so called first usage of the term. Or was it some other significant development reaching its full impact in 1924 that marked the end of the "workers' government" in 1924?

As far as the second usage is concerned, it's patently contradictory and a nonsense. Or is it okay to be contradictory in your theory since reality itself is contardictory (that way being contradictory actually amounts to being faithful to reality haha)? Such a usage is contardictory since it rests upon the notion that nationalized enterprises represent the economic basis of socialism, a view which fails to capture what capital, as a social relation, in fact is and how it operates irrespective of juriedical ownership and repeats the blunder that planning is inherently in oposition to (surplus) value production, and all the while it insist on the term "workers' state".

[daft punk]

I hold Trotsky to a high regard, even though I have disagreements. Don't jump down my throat because I don't hold him up as a god.

You shall not worship false idols!



Just because property is statified, doesn't make it a workers' state.
in one sense it does, see my post above.




Trotsky's flaw was regarding the government of Stalin as a state that protected the social rule of the proletariat -- at least he implies that by referring to the state as a workers' state, which it was not.


We know the workers' organs of power, the soviets, were non-existent under Stalin.

which is why it was regarded as degenerated


Now, we look to the mode of production, whether exploitation occurred, etc. We see it as very much capitalist, with a state bourgeoisie, as opposed to a private bourgeoisie.

There is no such thing. The bureaucracy was an elite, but not a class, it did not own the means of production. Capitalism is private property.




The bureaucrats representing the privileged, exploiting class. Now, don't say they weren't all priveleged, because to an extent they were, regardless of threat of being killed or interned by Stalin. Some bourgeoisie faced the same under right wing dictators, if they did not receive sufficient support.

Of course they were privileged. But they were more like a caste than a separate class.



Again, when we look at the idea of a workers' state, we go back to Lenin's "State and Revolution". What three criteria did he set forth?

Control was not carried out by armed workers, but by a state of bureaucrats.

. - This certainly wasn't the case.

Didn't occur.

So, we see how the Stalinist state did not represent Lenin's idea of a workers' state at all.

Well, I already knew that. Stalin took things in the opposite direction to the State and revolution. But he did collectivise. And collectivised economies are half way to socialism.




Trotsky deviates, wrongly so in my opinion, from Lenin by considering it a workers' state. he does this, due to his regard of the workers' state under Lenin, and disregarding how the counter revolution, did indeed remove the proletariat social rule.


He doesnt disregard this at all, not in the tiniest, little bit. Not on an electron microscopic scale. He did a bit in 1923 but nobody could foresee everything.




Trotsky was wrong, and as many of his followers, such as Cliff, Dunayevksaya, and CLR James noted, the theory of a degenerated workers' state was indeed flawed.

Cliff was wrong



A few reads that I would suggest, are:

Russia: A Marxist Analysis (https://epress.anu.edu.au/archive/cliff/works/1964/russia/index.htm),

The USSR is a Capitalist Society (http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1941/ussr-capitalist.htm),

An Analysis of Russian Economy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1942/russian-economy/index.htm),

Resolution on the Russian Question (http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1941/09/russia.htm).

If you like reading, read this

http://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1949/cliff.htm

Ted Grant

Against the Theory of State Capitalism

Reply to Comrade Cliff



"The document of Comrade Cliff entitled The Nature of Stalinist Russia[source] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1948/stalruss/index.htm) at first sight gives the impression of erudition and scientific analysis. However, upon careful examination, it will be observed that not one of the chapters contains a worked-out thesis. The method is a series of parallels based on quotations, and its basic weakness is shown by the fact that conclusions are not rooted in the analysis. From his thesis it is not possible to conclude whether Stalinist Russia remains a progressive system (despite its deformations), or whether for Cliff it has now assumed the same reactionary role as ‘individual’ capitalism or fascism. The weakness is sharply brought out by the fact that no practical conclusions emerge. Is Russia to be defended, or is the revolutionary party to be defeatist? Instead of the answer being rooted in and flowing from the analysis, it has to be worked out a posteriori. Despite the fact that Comrade Cliff asserts that the Stalinist bureaucracy is a new class, nowhere in his thesis is a real analysis made or evidence adduced as to why and how such a class constitutes a capitalist class and is not a new type of class.
And this is not accidental. It flows from the method. Starting off with the preconceived idea of state capitalism, everything is artificially fitted into that conception. Instead of applying the theoretical method of the Marxist teachers to Russian society in its process of motion and development, he has scoured the works to gather quotations and attempted to compress them into a theory."


read on...seriously, if you are prepared to give it a proper read, and are not convinced, then by all means post your reply, but this is the analysis the CWI have stuck to and it's good enough for me.



also see this


http://www.trotsky.net/trotsky_year/rise_of_stalinism.html


The Rise of Stalinism


Part Two of Ted Grant's book

Russia: from Revolution to Counterrevolution (http://www.marxist.com/russiabook)

The Marxist theory of the state

"We shall now proceed to build, on the space cleared of historical rubbish, the airy, towering edifice of socialist society"

Lenin, 8th November 1917

[Brosip Tito]

Stalin abolished capitalism but he also abolished socialism.

There are 2 ways you can use the term 'workers state'. The first is a workers government as in 1917-24. The second is a collectivised economy as in 1928 onwards. To have socialism you need both. Unfortunately Stalin killed off the former before doing the latter. It was a planned economy (workers state, in the second meaning) and it was degenerated (in the first meaning).
Stalin did not abolish capitalism.

Workers' state is when the workers hold political power, as they did at the beginning of the revolution via the soviets. They did not hold this power under Stalin. Therefore, it ceased to be a workers' state.

By your definitions, starting with the first, reformists could form a workers' state by being elected into parliament. Second definition, is totally wrong, and nowhere does it say this is a criteria of only a workers state. Collective farming takes place in Israel, Mexico and India as well.

Second, the US under Roosevelt had a planned economy, France used Planned economics, as did Allende in Chile. You're telling me they were all socialist?

As far as collectivization goes, it wasn't total. Agriculture was collectivized, not industry. Regardless, these collectives were still exploited in a capitalist manner. There are collectives in the USA, as well as cooperatives. Surely, the US must be a workers' state!

Lenin in State and Revolution, cited those three criteria I listed in that earlier post. None of which you can defend as having existed.

[Rooster]

Why is it that every thread here has recently turned into arguments over whether the USSR was capitalist, socialist or neither? Can't it be kept in one thread?


Well it's not a problem for me now that I have a good understanding of what's being said and I understand the language, but for people new to politics/economics who aren't used to reading fancy stuff it's confusing to take in.

I guess that's probably the same with most subjects that people aren't used to. I guess that Marxism might be a little harder because of when Marx was writing and the philosophical subjects.


I could understand why even the most well educated leftists would have problems reading Capital though; I tried a while ago (and bear in mind I only found out about the left around a year ago, and even then I didn't look into it properly) and I had to reread and explain everything to myself about a 300 times to understand even the first 5 - 10 pages or so.

Capital is boring. That's the hardest part for me. Maybe I should get back to it though. I think the more I read it the more I enjoy it but still... I find it hard to concentrate.


Luckily I found Marx's Capital for Beginners very useful and if anyone wanting to learn about communism asks me for material to read I point them towards that now.

Rafiq made this post which has some online guides to Marx:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/study-guides-reading-t167335/index.html?t=167335

Also, have you heard of Kapitalism101?

http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/

There's links to his videos on youtube under the articles on the right hand side. It's mostly about economics. Surprisingly there's an article about David Harvey on it at the moment....

[Lanky Wanker]

Why is it that every thread here has recently turned into arguments over whether the USSR was capitalist, socialist or neither? Can't it be kept in one thread?


This is Revleft, get wid da tymez bruh.



Rafiq made this post which has some online guides to Marx:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/study-guides-reading-t167335/index.html?t=167335

Also, have you heard of Kapitalism101?

http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/

There's links to his videos on youtube under the articles on the right hand side. It's mostly about economics. Surprisingly there's an article about David Harvey on it at the moment....

No I haven't, so thanks for these. The study guide questions sound like what I'd be given for work if I took Marxism as a school subject. :lol:

[Rooster]

This is Revleft, get wid da tymez bruh.

Maybe we should run the site along democratic centralist lines. Take a vote on it then everyone has to follow that.

[Brosip Tito]

You shall not worship false idols![QUOTE]Point is, a lot of Trots refuse to believe Trotsky could be wrong, and you seem like such'

[QUOTE]in one sense it does, see my post above.No, it doesn't. If property is statified, and that state is in the hands of the worker, then yes. However, the state was in the hands of the bureaucrats, not the proletariat.


which is why it was regarded as degeneratedDegenerateed workers' state, is still a workers' state. Trotsky argued that the state was still defending the social rule of the proletariat, which it was not.


There is no such thing. The bureaucracy was an elite, but not a class, it did not own the means of production. Capitalism is private property. The state did indeed own the means of production, because the workers certainly did not. The state exploited the workers in a capitalist manor.


Of course they were privileged. But they were more like a caste than a separate class. They were not workers, they were bourgeois.


Well, I already knew that. Stalin took things in the opposite direction to the State and revolution. But he did collectivise. And collectivised economies are half way to socialism. No it isn't, there's no "halfway" to socialism. Collectivisation isn't how to handle agriculture, nationalization is how you handle agriculture. That is what a workers' state should be doing.

Where in Marx or Lenin's work does either say "Collectivization is halfway to socialism"? Come off it.


He doesnt disregard this at all, not in the tiniest, little bit. Not on an electron microscopic scale. He did a bit in 1923 but nobody could foresee everything. He does disregard it, or he wouldn't recognize the state as defending the social rule of the worker.


Cliff was wrongI cited more than cliff. Did you read any of it?




If you like reading, read this

http://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1949/cliff.htm

Ted Grant

Against the Theory of State Capitalism

Reply to Comrade Cliff



"The document of Comrade Cliff entitled The Nature of Stalinist Russia[source] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1948/stalruss/index.htm) at first sight gives the impression of erudition and scientific analysis. However, upon careful examination, it will be observed that not one of the chapters contains a worked-out thesis. The method is a series of parallels based on quotations, and its basic weakness is shown by the fact that conclusions are not rooted in the analysis. From his thesis it is not possible to conclude whether Stalinist Russia remains a progressive system (despite its deformations), or whether for Cliff it has now assumed the same reactionary role as ‘individual’ capitalism or fascism. The weakness is sharply brought out by the fact that no practical conclusions emerge. Is Russia to be defended, or is the revolutionary party to be defeatist? Instead of the answer being rooted in and flowing from the analysis, it has to be worked out a posteriori. Despite the fact that Comrade Cliff asserts that the Stalinist bureaucracy is a new class, nowhere in his thesis is a real analysis made or evidence adduced as to why and how such a class constitutes a capitalist class and is not a new type of class.
And this is not accidental. It flows from the method. Starting off with the preconceived idea of state capitalism, everything is artificially fitted into that conception. Instead of applying the theoretical method of the Marxist teachers to Russian society in its process of motion and development, he has scoured the works to gather quotations and attempted to compress them into a theory."


read on...seriously, if you are prepared to give it a proper read, and are not convinced, then by all means post your reply, but this is the analysis the CWI have stuck to and it's good enough for me.



also see this


http://www.trotsky.net/trotsky_year/rise_of_stalinism.html


The Rise of Stalinism


Part Two of Ted Grant's book

Russia: from Revolution to Counterrevolution (http://www.marxist.com/russiabook)

The Marxist theory of the state

"We shall now proceed to build, on the space cleared of historical rubbish, the airy, towering edifice of socialist society"

Lenin, 8th November 1917


I'll give it a read, but you still haven't answered to CLR James or Dunayevskaya.

You also haven't put what you've read into an argument of your own. I have.

[Lanky Wanker]

Maybe we should run the site along democratic centralist lines. Take a vote on it then everyone has to follow that.

http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/c55/61d/341/resized/y-u-no-meme-generator-revleft-com-y-u-no-democratic-a2fa1b.jpg

I thought we'd see more voting and stuff on a site like this actually.

[Brosip Tito]

http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/c55/61d/341/resized/y-u-no-meme-generator-revleft-com-y-u-no-democratic-a2fa1b.jpg

I thought we'd see more voting and stuff on a site like this actually.Central Committee voting on stuff, they already do don't they?

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2400822#post2400822)
"Stalin abolished capitalism but he also abolished socialism."
Wow, this must be one of the more contardictory, nonsensical statements I've seen on the boards recently.

really? what is contradictory about it? Obviously I'm not saying socialism existed. Stalin abolished the socialist movement, abolished socialism as an aim.



Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2400822#post2400822)
"There are 2 ways you can use the term 'workers state'. The first is a workers government as in 1917-24. The second is a collectivised economy as in 1928 onwards. To have socialism you need both. Unfortunately Stalin killed off the former before doing the latter. It was a planned economy (workers state, in the second meaning) and it was degenerated (in the first meaning). "


It's funny how you uphold Lenin's death as the historical breking point of the so called first usage of the term. Or was it some other significant development reaching its full impact in 1924 that marked the end of the "workers' government" in 1924?

the root cause was the isolation of the revolution in a backward country. Stalin personified that. He manoeuvred into power very quickly after Lenin's death, spurred on by the need to suppress Lenin's testament. He based himself on the bureaucracy inherited from the Tsar, the wealthy and the middle class. He said they needed to rely on the rich peasants to feed the population.




As far as the second usage is concerned, it's patently contradictory and a nonsense. Or is it okay to be contradictory in your theory since reality itself is contardictory (that way being contradictory actually amounts to being faithful to reality haha)? Such a usage is contardictory since it rests upon the notion that nationalized enterprises represent the economic basis of socialism,

Nationalised enterprises do represent the economic basis of socialism, yes. I would have thought that was pretty obvious.




a view which fails to capture what capital, as a social relation, in fact is and how it operates irrespective of juriedical ownership and repeats the blunder that planning is inherently in oposition to (surplus) value production, and all the while it insist on the term "workers' state".
I dont think I fully understand what you are saying here. What is the alternative way of getting to socialism if nationalisation is no good?

[Thirsty Crow]

really? what is contradictory about it? Obviously I'm not saying socialism existed. Stalin abolished the socialist movement, abolished socialism as an aim. Oh, okay then, I mistook this usage of the term for that which sees socialism as a developed, achieved mode of production distinct from capitalism.


the root cause was the isolation of the revolution in a backward country. Stalin personified that. He manoeuvred into power very quickly after Lenin's death, spurred on by the need to suppress Lenin's testament. He based himself on the bureaucracy inherited from the Tsar, the wealthy and the middle class. He said they needed to rely on the rich peasants to feed the population. So indeed you see one man's death, and another's manouvering into positions of power, as the breaking point in the political history of the early USSR, with the usual, tired caveat of the intenational isolation as something which would give off the impression that you're engaging in a materialist analysis of political history, while you're obviously not doing that

Oh and by the way, it didn't take a Stalin to proclaim NEP as the basic set of polciies regulating the relationship between the city and the countryside, between the revolutionary proletariat (already then beaten into defeat and overwhelmed by counter-revolution) and the peasantry.


Nationalised enterprises do represent the economic basis of socialism, yes. I would have thought that was pretty obvious.What is obvious is how faulty this perspective is. No, nationalized capital doesn't represent the economic basis of socialism.


I dont think I fully understand what you are saying here. What is the alternative way of getting to socialism if nationalisation is no good?
Ask specifically if there is a concrete problem.
In short, I wanted to convey that juridical ownership - nationalized or privatized capital, is not the fundamental determinant in realizing whether capital, as a social relation of production (and not only the agglomerate of the means of production - factories, tools and so on), has been abolished or whether it still serves as the basis for a society's organization of production (alonside the working class).

But to answer your point, nationalization as conducted in USSR, and in a similar though patently different way in a host of countries, first of all in newly industrializing Germany at the turn of the century (and a few decades earlier), amounts not to the transformation of the social relations of production, to the abolition of capital, but rather to the restructuring of the ruling class (though not as part of the grand plan by the Bolsheviks, as many of the opponents of the October Revolution like to think). As I've stated, nationalized capital still commands and exploits wage labour, and revolution is still on the agenda.

To speculate on the hypothetical alternatives is futile, in my opinion. But whereas we have the historical example of the very early constitution of the party-state, then I'd have to conclude that exactly sucha formation should be prevented, and to recognuze workers' councils or the soviets as the bases of a new political structure (one enabling the dominance of the working class), alongside workers' control in day-to-day operation of the workplaces, which is incidentally connected, in my opinion, with the attempt NOT to submit the International, which is a hugely important organization in spreading te revolution, to the informal rule of one national section. In other words, in realizing the basis for world communism, internationalism is vitally important in that it might become a sort of an accelerant driving the revolution forwards through other parts of the planet.
As far as ecnomic concerns go, I indicated what I think about the practice of one-man management (and relying upon professional strata using the lack of laboue power as a tool in securing their own interests at the expense of the proletariat), to which we could add the need for the resumption and indeed the expansion of production for immediate consumption (something which Russia, in dire need for industrialization and modernization, couldn't have achieved in the 20s), in order to facilitate rising living standards, as well as more free time, for the workers. Indeed, I would also advocate, strongly in fact, the shortening of working day and, depending on the circumstances, complete socialization of the means of production, including small business property. Followed by, if and when revolution spreads, the abolition of money and trade (in favour of, if necessary and considering productivity in each sector, the introduction of renumeration based on labour hours ALONGSIDE the guaranteed income in form of guaranteed basic foodstuffs, electricity, access to water and housing, education and so on). I can't think of anything else, but I find it necessary to point out that compiling lists of measures in such a way should be avoided most of the time since I think that the conditions facing the revolutionary proletariat (soon becoming "extinct" as a social class, along other classses) will actually forge the necessary understanding and implementation of concrete economic measures.

[Lanky Wanker]

Central Committee voting on stuff, they already do don't they?

:confused: No idea, never heard about it before...