Material Conditions

[Brosip Tito]

A comrade caught my attention recently, when he concluded that the material conditions in Soviet Russia were such that the only outcome that could occur was the remergence of capital. Regardless had Lenin stayed alive, or Trotsky took over. That the material conditions at a given time provide for only one outcome.

Now, I've always held the understanding that material conditions could provide for multiple outcomes, should man take advantage of one of them.

For instance, I believe the material conditions in Russia provided not only for the remergence of captial under the bureacratic dictatorship (which we seen happen), but also of a pure proletarian state whose goal actually was the building of socialism, had the right policies and actions been taken by the masses and the Bolshevik party (proletarianization of the peasantry, further democratization, maintaining the soviets, etc).

As Engels said: "Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism".

So, am I correct, that material conditions can provide the oppurtunity of one of multiple outcomes at a given time?

[Brosip Tito]

bump.

[Blake's Baby]

You're right that more than one possibilty is possible from given material conditions, but you're friend is right that in the specific situation of Russia in 1921, it was not possible to move to socialism.

'Man makes history - but not in circumstances of his chosing'. Some things are 'given', others are a matter of will and energy. The revolution in Russia wasn't inevitable, but then again, the failure of the revolution in Germany wasn't inevitable. Just, likely.

[Brosip Tito]

But after 1921, after the civil war and famine, it was possible, imo.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

For instance, I believe the material conditions in Russia provided not only for the remergence of captial under the bureacratic dictatorship (which we seen happen), but also of a pure proletarian state whose goal actually was the building of socialism, had the right policies and actions been taken by the masses and the Bolshevik party (proletarianization of the peasantry, further democratization, maintaining the soviets, etc).
None of this was a possibility in Russia at the time. Mainly because of the isolation of the revolution. The poverty and underdevelopment of Russia was also to make things worse for the revolutionaries.


So, am I correct, that material conditions can provide the oppurtunity of one of multiple outcomes at a given time?
It´s impossible to generalize I think. Some material conditions offer possibilities of different outcomes. Some offer only one pre-determined conclusion.

[Brosip Tito]

None of this was a possibility in Russia at the time. Mainly because of the isolation of the revolution. The poverty and underdevelopment of Russia was also to make things worse for the revolutionaries.I agree, totally. The German revolution failing fucked shit up!



It´s impossible to generalize I think. Some material conditions offer possibilities of different outcomes. Some offer only one pre-determined conclusion.Hence I said "can" :P.

[Caj]

I think your friend was right that the re-emergence of capital was an inevitability in Russia given its material situation. The form could have been different say if Trotsky instead of Stalin had took power after Lenin's death, but the content would have been the same: the re-institution of capitalism. To deny this is really to adopt a great man, rather than a materialist, perspective on the degeneration of the Russian Revolution. There was a chance of moving forward had the German Revolution succeeded in the winter of 1918-1919, but after that, the Russian proletariat was basically fucked.

[marl]

Maybe if Trotsky had come to power we'd of seen the emergence of German communists, which could lead into a conflict with France over the nationalization of French industry in the Ruhr (and thus either dooming the revolution, or the revolution spreading to France). US would not take kindly to this, because France was in debt to GB who was in debt to the US. We'd be dependent on world revolution, and there would of been a better possibility...

Of to create world socialism in Victoria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_II), comrades!

[Blake's Baby]

But after 1921, after the civil war and famine, it was possible, imo.

And that, my friend, is where we philosophically part company. If you believe in national socialism, I see no reason to continue the conversation.

[Art Vandelay]

"Finally, in addition to a world of infinite qualitative variety, we have in this materialism a world of infinitely complex interaction. Unlike most previous materialism, thanks to its dialectical method, Marxist materialism holds to no "billiard ball" universe, in which A strikes B, B strikes C, and so on in an endless succession of mechanical causes. Things interact in such ways that an organism which is a product of its environment may also react upon and change its environment, and man can be a product of history and in turn make history and change himself in the process."

[Le Socialiste]

The failure of the working-class to seize power abroad all but sealed Russia's fate as an isolated, encircled state entity, thus permitting those conditions that laid the framework for the resurgence of capital. The bureaucratization of the party-state, the regimentation of labor, and the restoration of the old bourgeoisie to positions of management all contributed to Russia's degeneration. First and foremost was the lack of success on the international front for the global proletariat in its fight against domestic and foreign capital, however.

[jookyle]

Isn't this why Marx said that the revolution had to happen industrialized countries first? Even Lenin in some of his last writings said that what they established in Russia was to hold the country over until the international revolution, starting in the industrialized nations had moved into Russia. This was one of the reasons why both Lenin and Trotsky wanted to establish a form of capitalism in Russia.

[ckaihatsu]

Isn't this why Marx said that the revolution had to happen industrialized countries first? Even Lenin in some of his last writings said that what they established in Russia was to hold the country over until the international revolution, starting in the industrialized nations had moved into Russia. This was one of the reasons why both Lenin and Trotsky wanted to establish a form of capitalism in Russia.


This also serves as a sound argument against Third Worldism, since we *should* readily see -- as from fairly recent events in Libya and Syria -- that uprisings and rebellions that are too constrained in geographical scope just play right into the hands of the major imperialist powers (NATO) by conveniently destabilizing those local countries for them.