Lenin's New Economic Policy?

[JPSartre12]

Hey comrades,

I've been doing some more reading on the New Economic Policy that Lenin proposed to the 10th Congress of the Communist Party. It kept pretty much everything other than the "commanding heights of the economy" (foreign trade, heavy industry, transportation, communication, etc) privatized. This sort of state-orientated mixed economy that had private-public cooperation seems better to me than straight-up neoliberal capitalism.

Do you think that a modern-day NEP would be a good idea? Why or why not?

I feel as if the immediate nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy would be good in the short term, because then you can de-centralize control of them to democratically-run worker's councils. But then again, if they're not de-centralized afterwards, you could end up with a sort of authoritarian state capitalism.

Thoughts?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The NEP wasn't an immediate nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy.

It came after the Russian civil war, where 'war communism' was imposed, where the Red Army took a certain amount of food from the poor peasants, regardless of how much they produced.

The NEP was where a market for food was opened up, whereby the infamous 'NEPmen' were allowed to sell a certain amount of surplus food on the side for profit. It was a move back towards Capitalism, in other words.

So no, today it doesn't even make sense to ask your question because we already have Capitalism and no State Capitalist-style government/no revolution.

By the way, nationalisation on its own has nothing to do with Socialism. Nationalisation in a Capitalist economy simply switches management from the private sector to the public sector, and does nothing to eliminate the profit motive. Without a political revolution, there would be no reason that Capitalist politicians would want nationalised industries to be democratically run by the workers (i.e. decentralised), and there would be no way for Social-Democratic/Reformist politicians who wanted to do so, to be able to. Capital would not allow it. Look at Cuba!

Without revolution you cannot, unsurprisingly, revolutionise the economy, the means of production, the production process or anything of that ilk!

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Hey comrades,

I've been doing some more reading on the New Economic Policy that Lenin proposed to the 10th Congress of the Communist Party. It kept pretty much everything other than the "commanding heights of the economy" (foreign trade, heavy industry, transportation, communication, etc) privatized. This sort of state-orientated mixed economy that had private-public cooperation seems better to me than straight-up neoliberal capitalism.

Do you think that a modern-day NEP would be a good idea? Why or why not?

I feel as if the immediate nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy would be good in the short term, because then you can de-centralize control of them to democratically-run worker's councils. But then again, if they're not de-centralized afterwards, you could end up with a sort of authoritarian state capitalism.

Thoughts?


Yes, it will most likely be the dominant system until markets and capital become obsolete. I wrote about the transition here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11297) and another timely reason here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11304).

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Hey comrades

Hola


I've been doing some more reading on the New Economic Policy that Lenin proposed to the 10th Congress of the Communist Party.

For a really good reading on the economic situation of the Soviet Union during the first years (including the NEP years) I would reccomend you read E.H. Carr's The Bolshevik Revolution Volume 2 (although I would reccomend all three volumes).


It kept pretty much everything other than the "commanding heights of the economy" (foreign trade, heavy industry, transportation, communication, etc) privatized. This sort of state-orientated mixed economy that had private-public cooperation seems better to me than straight-up neoliberal capitalism.

1. There is no such thing as a mixed economy. I have made this point in another thread.
2. Yes, it would've been much better than neoliberalism


Do you think that a modern-day NEP would be a good idea? Why or why not?

It really depends. The NEP shouldn't be held up as some "great, majestic" thing but be looked at for what it was: a necessary step backwards. For the time, it was essentially a correct step to help Russia industrialize, fight the petty bourgeoisie in the countryside, etc. although mistakes were made. I don't see such a form of state-capitalism really being necessary for an industrialized and developed country (such as the United States) but I would see it being a step a under-developed country could take.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Hola



For a really good reading on the economic situation of the Soviet Union during the first years (including the NEP years) I would reccomend you read E.H. Carr's The Bolshevik Revolution Volume 2 (although I would reccomend all three volumes).



1. There is no such thing as a mixed economy. I have made this point in another thread.
2. Yes, it would've been much better than neoliberalism



It really depends. The NEP shouldn't be held up as some "great, majestic" thing but be looked at for what it was: a necessary step backwards. For the time, it was essentially a correct step to help Russia industrialize, fight the petty bourgeoisie in the countryside, etc. although mistakes were made. I don't see such a form of state-capitalism really being necessary for an industrialized and developed country (such as the United States) but I would see it being a step a under-developed country could take.

That depends on what kind of revolution it was. If it is a revolution where workers have not formed worker councils or the likes yet, if there is a coup of a worker vanguard, then the management of the capitalist economy is an inevitability. This is why i focus on this situation ,because if workers do form soviets, and it works, there is no need for a transition to socialism. But historically speaking, worker council economies have been a disaster, so this is why i assume it won't work immediately and that there will need to be a transition not only for that reason (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11297) but also for this reason (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11304).

[Le Socialiste]

I've been doing some more reading on the New Economic Policy that Lenin proposed to the 10th Congress of the Communist Party. It kept pretty much everything other than the "commanding heights of the economy" (foreign trade, heavy industry, transportation, communication, etc) privatized. This sort of state-orientated mixed economy that had private-public cooperation seems better to me than straight-up neoliberal capitalism.

As those above me have pointed out, it was not a mixed economy by any means, merely a process of privatization that targeted specific sectors within the economy. While NEP was as much a product of Russia's isolation and internal conflicts, it cemented the general degenerative trajectory of the revolution (at this point floundering). The wartime policy of food requisition, facing growing opposition, was replaced with a tax. Drought, famine, and a decline in the urban population (the Bolshevik's primary support base) spurred Lenin and others within the party to formulate an adequate response to the crisis. Lenin defended his position on multiple occasions, even championing NEP's introduction as a means of passing "over the threshold" into socialism:

"In order to convince the reader that this is not the first time I have given this 'high' appreciation of state capitalism and that I gave it before the Bolsheviks seized power, I take the liberty of quoting the following passage from my pamphlet, The Impending Catastrophe and How To Combat It, written in September 1917.

...

State-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs" (The Tax in Kind).

NEP proved to be an inadequate response to the issue, signaling the end of the revolutionary period. The policy ultimately contributed to the reintroduction and ascendance of capital under the oversight of state management, and paved the way for what would later be Stalin's five-year plans. Lenin erred on the side of caution when he brought NEP to the table, trying via a variety of analytical skips and jumps to ground his policy in the material. What NEP was strayed from this framework however; state-monopoly capitalism is by no means a complete(!) material preparation for the "passing into" of socialism. Lenin was trying - unsuccessfully - to salvage what remained, only to throw the remnants into an act that was in direct contradiction with the aspiring interests of the Russian proletariat. At this point I think Lenin and the Bolsheviks were so divorced from the intentions of labor that any future actions would of flown in the face of the latter's stability and overall enthusiasm.


Do you think that a modern-day NEP would be a good idea? Why or why not?

In what context? In a period akin to that faced by the Bolsheviks, no. NEP was a step backwards, and while it was formulated on the basis of deteriorating circumstances and isolation, it marked the final death knell for the revolution.


I feel as if the immediate nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy would be good in the short term, because then you can de-centralize control of them to democratically-run worker's councils. But then again, if they're not de-centralized afterwards, you could end up with a sort of authoritarian state capitalism.

Thoughts?

Our intent should be the merger of the working-class with sole ownership over all productive and distributive means of management, in relation to its seizure of political power and the dismantlement of current ties between capital and labor. Nationalization merely switches private ownership to public, without altering the fundamentals of extractive capital's productive forces.

[Book O'Dead]

Didn't Stalin do away with the NEP almost as soon as he took over by collectivizing and centralizing the economy, particluarly the small peasant landholders?

I think I remember a passage in Isaac Deustcher's "Stalin" wherein he describes how when the Kulak realized they were being dispossessed they rushed to destroy their crops and slaughter their beasts in an orgy of peasant consumption that culminated in huge bonfires of wheat and dead cattle. According to Deustcher, Stalin became alarmed and ordered the GPU and other agencies to intervene with draconian measures.

[JPSartre12]

Nationalization merely switches private ownership to public, without altering the fundamentals of extractive capital's productive forces.

Oh, I'm not implying that nationalizing an industry somehow makes it more socialistic in any way. You're right, switching something from private to public doesn't get rid of any productive forces. I'm just thinking that, if an industry is nationalized, and placed under the control of the government rather than unaccountable corporations, it might be a little easier to eventually democratize. Your Lenin quote ...


State-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs" (The Tax in Kind).


... seems to suggest that inducing state capitalism is an effective way to "rush" (for lack of a better word) the historical process so that socialism can be reached more quickly. Do I have that right?


That depends on what kind of revolution it was

Exactly - having a vanguard party instigate and lead a revolution that attempts to rush agrarian feudalism (that is, pre-soviet Russia) into industrialized, post-scarcity socialism (what the Soviet Union wanted to become) is very different than having a spontaneous, mass proletarian movement in a fully capitalist system sparked by universal class consciousness.


There is no such thing as a mixed economy

Well, I don't necessarily mean a traditional Third Way system, or anything like that. I guess I was just using a bunch of words strung together to describe an economy with both a private sector and a public sector :tt2:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Oh, I'm not implying that nationalizing an industry somehow makes it more socialistic in any way. You're right, switching something from private to public doesn't get rid of any productive forces. I'm just thinking that, if an industry is nationalized, and placed under the control of the government rather than unaccountable corporations, it might be a little easier to eventually democratize. Your Lenin quote ...



... seems to suggest that inducing state capitalism is an effective way to "rush" (for lack of a better word) the historical process so that socialism can be reached more quickly. Do I have that right?



Exactly - having a vanguard party instigate and lead a revolution that attempts to rush agrarian feudalism (that is, pre-soviet Russia) into industrialized, post-scarcity socialism (what the Soviet Union wanted to become) is very different than having a spontaneous, mass proletarian movement in a fully capitalist system sparked by universal class consciousness.



Well, I don't necessarily mean a traditional Third Way system, or anything like that. I guess I was just using a bunch of words strung together to describe an economy with both a private sector and a public sector :tt2:


If anything, nationalisation by Capitalist government induces false consciousness and makes revolution more difficult. The step-by-step model doesn't work, hasn't work, won't work. That's not me being a cretinous cynic (though I am!), it's history bearing this out in practice over and over and over again.

This doesn't mean we should wish for right-wing policies to immiserate the working class in the hope they rise up. After all, we are workers ourselves and only the petit bourgeoisie kids typing on their apple macs really wish that out of hot-headed political excitement. Our goal is to build a genuine mass movement of class-conscious workers. I think that, due to time going by, this is very difficult for political novices to imagine, as it is for me. By that I don't mean condescension, I simply mean that it's been so long since revolutionary Socialism was 'on the map', so to speak, that unless you were around in the 60s/70s, maybe the 80s, then you'll have no idea (as I don't) how a mass movement of resistance actually bears out in practice.

An economy with a private sector and a public sector is called Capitalism. Capitalism shifts between the two as and when it needs. Post-WW2 it moved towards Keynesianism because it was hoped that this system would bring growth and profit, as it had done in the run up to WW2 when the market failed the economy. When Keynesianism failed, they switched back to the free market and in the past few years the public sector has been used to bail out the banks and large insurance companies; 'Socialism for the rich', they call it. It's nothing of the sort.

Yet again comrade (and you're a smart guy and i'm sure you're hearing this a lot right now on here, as a democratic socialist!), nationalisation honestly has nothing to do with revolutionary Socialism. Those who work in the public sector can be seen not as something of different character or ilk than those in the private sector, but merely the political managers (the public managers) of private capital (the private sector). It is common for people in the public sector to move to the private sector and vice versa (Hank Paulson, Tony Blair and many many more), because they all have the same interests. Therefore it matters not whether the political managers take temporary charge of some economic interests, because their interests are categorically exactly the same as those of private capital. Nationalisation raises no greater hope of Socialism, if not accompanied by a revolutionary, democratic change in management structure, i.e. proletarian democracy within the economic sphere. And let's not be under any illusions that anyone from the Capitalist class will ever have the will/ability to enact this in any way.

[Book O'Dead]

[...]This doesn't mean we should wish for right-wing policies to immiserate the working class in the hope they rise up. After all, we are workers ourselves and only the petit bourgeoisie kids typing on their apple macs really wish that out of hot-headed political excitement. Our goal is to build a genuine mass movement of class-conscious workers. I think that, due to time going by, this is very difficult for political novices to imagine, as it is for me. By that I don't mean condescension, I simply mean that it's been so long since revolutionary Socialism was 'on the map', so to speak, that unless you were around in the 60s/70s, maybe the 80s, then you'll have no idea (as I don't) how a mass movement of resistance actually bears out in practice.
[...]

When you say "our goal". whom are you referring to? Who is the implied "we"?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The already politicised part of the working class.

[Positivist]

Didn't Stalin do away with the NEP almost as soon as he took over by collectivizing and centralizing the economy, particluarly the small peasant landholders?

I think I remember a passage in Isaac Deustcher's "Stalin" wherein he describes how when the Kulak realized they were being dispossessed they rushed to destroy their crops and slaughter their beasts in an orgy of peasant consumption that culminated in huge bonfires of wheat and dead cattle. According to Deustcher, Stalin became alarmed and ordered the GPU and other agencies to intervene with draconian measures.

Yes collectivization did trigger mass wasting of cattle and plants by the kulaks, and there were some militant measures taken against them, but also many of the kulaks died by their own hand, meaning that they didn't have any food to eat because they burnt it all down. Many of the victims of holdomor were kulaks.

[JPSartre12]

If anything, nationalisation by Capitalist government induces false consciousness and makes revolution more difficult. The step-by-step model doesn't work, hasn't work, won't work. That's not me being a cretinous cynic (though I am!), it's history bearing this out in practice over and over and over again.

I agree with you for the most part! However, would it not be preferable to have the government be in control of the means of production vis-a-vis nationalization than having the private sector? At least the government is under some level of democratic control, wherein corporations, etc are under even less. Thoughts?


Yet again comrade (and you're a smart guy and i'm sure you're hearing this a lot right now on here, as a democratic socialist!), nationalisation honestly has nothing to do with revolutionary Socialism. Those who work in the public sector can be seen not as something of different character or ilk than those in the private sector, but merely the political managers (the public managers) of private capital (the private sector). It is common for people in the public sector to move to the private sector and vice versa (Hank Paulson, Tony Blair and many many more), because they all have the same interests. Therefore it matters not whether the political managers take temporary charge of some economic interests, because their interests are categorically exactly the same as those of private capital. Nationalisation raises no greater hope of Socialism, if not accompanied by a revolutionary, democratic change in management structure, i.e. proletarian democracy within the economic sphere. And let's not be under any illusions that anyone from the Capitalist class will ever have the will/ability to enact this in any way.


Yes, again I agree. I'm not thinking about state-capitalism not as something that we should support, but rather thinking about it in this way: in countries wherein their production is not sophisticated or industrialized enough to overcome scarcity / prepare for socialism, wouldn't government nationalization of the means of production provide a way to "rush" industrial development and speed up the historical dialectic?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Why is the government under 'some' level of democratic control? Just as shareholders and executives control corporations, so the statistics show that capital also controls politics - you need money to enter politics and, as a party, to win an election you need to have raised the most money. In general, this holds.

Governments are not really bound by public opinion any more than the private sector. Politicians may play to the whims of populism to satisfy their own desire to continue power via electoralism, but this will always be subordinate to the interests of capital, since an unpopular politician with lost of money has a chance of winning an election; a popular politician with no money has no chance of having any influence.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'speed up the historical dialectic'. Could you elaborate? Also, i'm not really sure that government nationalisation does provide a way to rush industrial development. The British, Germans and much of Capitalist Europe underwent their own industrial revolutions that were impressive, just as the industrialisation of the Soviet Union was. I don't really see any great industrial gains through the Soviet model of industrialisation, since it lacked democratic character, was based on a great deal of coercion and generally was not sustainable. As early as the mid-1960s - barely 30 years after industrialisation in the USSR began - they were needing to resort back to Capitalism as we know it, in the form of the Kosygin reforms, to bolster the economy. This doesn't suggest to me that state-managed industrialisation is any more impressive than free-market industrial development, though of course it did have its benefits (socially speaking) and certainly was quite impressive.

Also, nationalisation has nothing to do with overcoming scarcity. Scarcity exists because the Capitalist system produces too much and distributes according to profit, not need. If anything, the government is an even greater distortion to the process of goods distribution than the market is.

Finally, to 'prepare for Socialism' is a bit of a misnomer. We can organise, educate and agitate all we want, but there's no slow road that 'prepares' us for Socialism.

[JPSartre12]

Why is the government under 'some' level of democratic control? Just as shareholders and executives control corporations, so the statistics show that capital also controls politics - you need money to enter politics and, as a party, to win an election you need to have raised the most money. In general, this holds.

Governments are not really bound by public opinion any more than the private sector. Politicians may play to the whims of populism to satisfy their own desire to continue power via electoralism, but this will always be subordinate to the interests of capital, since an unpopular politician with lost of money has a chance of winning an election; a popular politician with no money has no chance of having any influence.

I guess I'm thinking that the officials in the government - yes, while being beholden to capital, corporations, Wall St, etc - are somewhat under democratic control, because they have to go through the electoral process to get into government in the first place. Oh sure, I agree with you that money is saturating politics, but to get elected you need votes, and people are the ones that vote.


I'm not sure what you mean by 'speed up the historical dialectic'. Could you elaborate? Also, i'm not really sure that government nationalisation does provide a way to rush industrial development. The British, Germans and much of Capitalist Europe underwent their own industrial revolutions that were impressive, just as the industrialisation of the Soviet Union was. I don't really see any great industrial gains through the Soviet model of industrialisation, since it lacked democratic character, was based on a great deal of coercion and generally was not sustainable. As early as the mid-1960s - barely 30 years after industrialisation in the USSR began - they were needing to resort back to Capitalism as we know it, in the form of the Kosygin reforms, to bolster the economy. This doesn't suggest to me that state-managed industrialisation is any more impressive than free-market industrial development, though of course it did have its benefits (socially speaking) and certainly was quite impressive.

I suppose saying "speed up the historical dialectic" wasn't awfully clear :rolleyes: What I'm trying to say is that history follows a natural process - Marx went on about having primitive systems becoming feudal ones, feudal ones becoming capitalist, and capitalism eventually hopping into socialism and then communism - and that government nationalizing the means of production so as to speed up production and induce faster, stronger, better industrialization and manufacturing would push us into, through, and from capitalism faster. Does that make sense? Possibly not still :tt2:


Also, nationalisation has nothing to do with overcoming scarcity. Scarcity exists because the Capitalist system produces too much and distributes according to profit, not need. If anything, the government is an even greater distortion to the process of goods distribution than the market is.


Oh, I agree :) An interesting point that a Marxist friend of mine (in fact, the one who introduced me to Marx in the first place!) made was that, because Russia had not become industrialized and was still had an agrarian-feudal system, it didn't have the productive power necessary to create products, services, goods, etc for everyone. Thus, Russia had to nationalize and collectivize the means of production so as to speed up production so that socialism could be brought about. I suppose that I'm thinking along those lines. A pre-capitalist mode of production doesn't seem to have the necessary productive potential to generate all of the goods that entire society will require, because it's still so primitive and under-developed.


Finally, to 'prepare for Socialism' is a bit of a misnomer. We can organise, educate and agitate all we want, but there's no slow road that 'prepares' us for Socialism.

You're right again :) Bad choice of words on my part :cool:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Politicians are NOT under democratic control. Or rather, whilst individual politicians may have populist whims, the political class as a whole is totally beholden to capital. This is the key point. Capital controls the economy; he who controls the economy ultimately controls the political system. Ergo, capital controls the political system and so holds sway over the political class in a big way. Maybe on the odd issue here or there, individual politicians 'stand up' to individual capitalists (the Murdochs recently, for example), but there is no chance of the political class standing up to capital as a whole, for 2 reasons:

1) the political class are largely bourgeois, it is not in their interests to do anything but implement the policies capital wants
2) capital would withdraw funding from whomever stands up to them and gut their careers

There's no real indication that State Capitalist economies grow faster than free market economies. They may have better social apparatus and care, sure, but in terms of growth - in the long-term - I don't think there's a noticeable difference. If there were, you can bet that we'd all be living under such systems now. There's simply no indication that nationalisation speeds up the end of Capitalism. Logically, nationalisation is used as a temporary, defensive tool by capital when it needs bailing out, i.e TARP, Quantitative Easing, Northern Rock. It has no progressive elements.

What you need to understand is that the relationship between liberal democracy, elections, politicians and capital is so complex and distorted (by capital) that it renders your point meaningless. Even if there is some truth to your argument re: democracy, that really is so far away from the financial system. It matters that the financial system is brought under democratic control, in order for us to destroy it. But whilst the financial system can in theory be nationalised, in practice this will never be allowed for anything other than pro-capital purposes, i.e in the form of Northern Rock, TARP - Socialism For The Rich. Any anti-capitalist nationalisation is sure to lead to whomever initiated it following Salvador Allende to a similarly grisly end.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

There's no real indication that State Capitalist economies grow faster than free market economies

Hahahaha! What do you think the western capitalist states have been since WW2? They followed the Soviet Union's model of massive State subsidization "State Capitalism" to keep up with its historically unprecedented growth rates of capital.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Hahahaha! What do you think the western capitalist states have been since WW2? They followed the Soviet Union's model of massive State subsidization "State Capitalism" to keep up with its historically unprecedented growth rates of capital.

They did so after WW2 and that ended in disaster. It was crass short-termism because they didn't realise that the material conditions of the USSR that made initial industrialisation fairly successful weren't transferrable to the already post-industrial Capitalist economies in the west.

[Peoples' War]

The NEP can be considered a necessary measure, in my views. It seems that some are forgetting that this is a transitory phase, not socialism.

Those on the far left of communism will attack Stalinists who claim socialism, but then will attack Lenin because there were remnants of capitalism.

The transitory phase WILL ALWAYS have remnants of capitalism. When it no longer does, we have achieved socialism, i.e. the lower phase of communism.

[Le Socialiste]

Oh, I'm not implying that nationalizing an industry somehow makes it more socialistic in any way. You're right, switching something from private to public doesn't get rid of any productive forces. I'm just thinking that, if an industry is nationalized, and placed under the control of the government rather than unaccountable corporations, it might be a little easier to eventually democratize.

How so? Nationalization of the productive and distributive processes doesn't by any means prepare them for their subsequent democratization, nor does it necessarily "hasten" the breakdown of those relations inherent in private capital. A functioning bourgeois government will be just as unaccountable to the working-class as corporate monopolies are. This is because, as TB has already illustrated, the state and capital are intrinsically tied through their dual-development and practical interests.

NEP was a response to Russia's material and political isolation in the world, a reaction to the swift deterioration of the revolution and the socioeconomic standing of what was a virtually nonexistent proletariat.


Your Lenin quote ... seems to suggest that inducing state capitalism is an effective way to "rush" (for lack of a better word) the historical process so that socialism can be reached more quickly. Do I have that right?

Lenin was simply asserting the 'ease' with which state capitalism could, within its proper context, fundamentally alter and 'make open' the transitory stage toward socialism. State monopoly capitalism was, he claimed, the most opportune transition point. I believe he was mistaken, providing a reasoning that was grossly inadequate and irrespectively bound to the party's gradual disengagement from the Russian proletariat and degeneration - but that's another matter.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The NEP can be considered a necessary measure, in my views. It seems that some are forgetting that this is a transitory phase, not socialism.

Those on the far left of communism will attack Stalinists who claim socialism, but then will attack Lenin because there were remnants of capitalism.

The transitory phase WILL ALWAYS have remnants of capitalism. When it no longer does, we have achieved socialism, i.e. the lower phase of communism.

Sorry, I just have to be rude and call you out on this?

There is no such thing as 'having remnants of capitalism'. Capitalism [and Socialism] are political systems of production. You either have a Capitalist system, where class antagonism exists, states exist and money exists (and ergo exploitation is possible and actually existing), or a Socialist system (where there are no classes, and at least there is a move to destroy the state and money, which eventually turns into a situation whereby there is no state and no money actually existing), or some other system such as Feudalism.

So yeah, we don't attach Lenin because the transitory phase had 'remnants of Capitalism' or some crap, we attack Lenin because he introduced Capitalism back into the USSR and set the stage for the Bolsheviks to continue to manage Capitalism, rather than ferment Socialism, over most of the 20th Century. It's quite simple really.

I mean, using your logic, we should support Cuba and China and uphold their systems because, you know, they contain 'remnants of Socialism'.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Sorry, I just have to be rude and call you out on this?

There is no such thing as 'having remnants of capitalism'. Capitalism [and Socialism] are political systems of production. You either have a Capitalist system, where class antagonism exists, states exist and money exists (and ergo exploitation is possible and actually existing), or a Socialist system (where there are no classes, and at least there is a move to destroy the state and money, which eventually turns into a situation whereby there is no state and no money actually existing), or some other system such as Feudalism.

So yeah, we don't attach Lenin because the transitory phase had 'remnants of Capitalism' or some crap, we attack Lenin because he introduced Capitalism back into the USSR and set the stage for the Bolsheviks to continue to manage Capitalism, rather than ferment Socialism, over most of the 20th Century. It's quite simple really.

I mean, using your logic, we should support Cuba and China and uphold their systems because, you know, they contain 'remnants of Socialism'.

I agree with you, but I do see the NEP as a step the Bolsheviks had to take. Either way, it did represent the beginning (not complete) of the degeneration of the revolution (along with the crushing of the Kronstadt sailors, etc.) I would say that the success of the counter-revolution institutionalized itself in Stalin's rule onward, but that is a whole other discussion.

[Peoples' War]

Sorry, I just have to be rude and call you out on this?Is that a question?


There is no such thing as 'having remnants of capitalism'. Capitalism [and Socialism] are political systems of production. You either have a Capitalist system, where class antagonism exists, states exist and money exists (and ergo exploitation is possible and actually existing), or a Socialist system (where there are no classes, and at least there is a move to destroy the state and money, which eventually turns into a situation whereby there is no state and no money actually existing), or some other system such as Feudalism. Well, sure, for someone who isn't a Marxist and doesn't believe in the necessity of a transitory phase. In which case, there is no point to argue with you.

Marx says this: ""Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.""

I mean, what Marx says about the lower phase of communism should be enough to make you think what the transitory phase (dictatorship of the proletariat) would look like. In reference to the lower phase of communism (which comes AFTER the DOTP), Marx says:

"What we have to deal with here...is a communist society...just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes."


So yeah, we don't attach Lenin because the transitory phase had 'remnants of Capitalism' or some crap, we attack Lenin because he introduced Capitalism back into the USSR and set the stage for the Bolsheviks to continue to manage Capitalism, rather than ferment Socialism, over most of the 20th Century. It's quite simple really. It's absolutely absurd, and anti-Marxist to believe the transitory phase will not be, in some form, capitalist -- or maintain remnants of capitalism.

It's also complete ignorance of the material conditions in Russia, which were such that the NEP was necessary. It was a small, and temporary, appeasement to the petty-bourgeois peasantry, not some giant leap backward to give power to the bourgeoisie as you are suggesting.

Class antagonisms still exist, the proletariat, the bourgeoisie. Wages still exist. Commodity production. The difference at this point is political power is in the hands of the workers, and economic power is being achieved through nationalization, formation of workers and councils, etc.

What, in your eyes, does the transitory phase (or DOTP) look like? Is it fully socialist? Not even Stalin claimed it was socialism until the late 30s/early 40s (?).

Nobody, who has an inkling of understanding of Marx, would claim that socialism can be immediately established after revolution, nor could it ever be established in a single country. You are, as I said before, being ignorant of the material conditions in Russia! The isolation, just a few years out of WWI, just out of a civil war, mistakes made such as giving land to the peasants (who are still a large and force, and source of issue) which caused problems, etc. all less than a decade into the revolution which sprung out of a backward and less developed capitalist country.


I mean, using your logic, we should support Cuba and China and uphold their systems because, you know, they contain 'remnants of Socialism'.What "certain remnants of Socialism" do they maintain? None. There is no workers state, unless you yourself are a Trotskyist, particularly of the Spartacist variety, who see these places as Degenerated Workers' States.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I agree with you, but I do see the NEP as a step the Bolsheviks had to take. Either way, it did represent the beginning (not complete) of the degeneration of the revolution (along with the crushing of the Kronstadt sailors, etc.) I would say that the success of the counter-revolution institutionalized itself in Stalin's rule onward, but that is a whole other discussion.

Of course the Bolsheviks had to take this step if they wanted to remain in power. That's the point. The resurrection of Capitalism was not in the best interests of the working class, but was in the best interests of the Bolsheviks, along with the crushing of Kronstadt and intra-party purges. Shows clearly the divergence of interests between the party and the wider working class very early in the revolutionary period.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well, sure, for someone who isn't a Marxist and doesn't believe in the necessity of a transitory phase. In which case, there is no point to argue with you.

The issue is not that there is a transitory phase. The issue is that it should be a genuine phase of revolutionary transformation to Socialism. In no way was the NEP representative of this. It allowed the economy to grow and thus saved the political skin of the Bolsheviks. It had nothing to do with the transition to Socialism.


Marx says this: ""Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.""

Key here is the term revolutionary transformation. The NEP is very clearly not part of any revolutionary transformation.


I mean, what Marx says about the lower phase of communism should be enough to make you think what the transitory phase (dictatorship of the proletariat) would look like. In reference to the lower phase of communism (which comes AFTER the DOTP), Marx says:

"What we have to deal with here...is a communist society...just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes."

Where does this quote come from? It is pretty difficult to really respond to a Marx quote with no context, no referencing or anything.


It's absolutely absurd, and anti-Marxist to believe the transitory phase will not be, in some form, capitalist -- or maintain remnants of capitalism.

Why is it anti-Marxist to assume that, post-revolution, power can be handed straight to the newly politically conscious working class, ensuring that the brakes are not put on the revolutionary transformation to Socialism?


It's also complete ignorance of the material conditions in Russia, which were such that the NEP was necessary. It was a small, and temporary, appeasement to the petty-bourgeois peasantry, not some giant leap backward to give power to the bourgeoisie as you are suggesting.

Ah well that's okay then, if it's only a petty-bourgeois policy, we can overlook that, right? As i've already said, the NEP was necessary but for whom? Certainly not for the working class. It was necessary for the Bolsheviks to maintain political power.

Class antagonisms still exist, the proletariat, the bourgeoisie. Wages still exist. Commodity production. The difference at this point is political power is in the hands of the workers, and economic power is being achieved through nationalization, formation of workers and councils, etc.

What, in your eyes, does the transitory phase (or DOTP) look like? Is it fully socialist? Not even Stalin claimed it was socialism until the late 30s/early 40s (?).


Nobody, who has an inkling of understanding of Marx, would claim that socialism can be immediately established after revolution, nor could it ever be established in a single country. You are, as I said before, being ignorant of the material conditions in Russia! The isolation, just a few years out of WWI, just out of a civil war, mistakes made such as giving land to the peasants (who are still a large and force, and source of issue) which caused problems, etc. all less than a decade into the revolution which sprung out of a backward and less developed capitalist country.

Russia was clearly not ready for Socialism. The Bolshevik grab of power was premature. They are the perfect historical example of the corruption of power. And no, i'm not anti-Marxist or reactionary or revisionist for this claim, because I believe - and have demonstrated many times - that there is always and everywhere a divorce of interests between the party that takes state power, and the wider working class. This is very demonstrable by even a cursory look at history.


What "certain remnants of Socialism" do they maintain? None. There is no workers state, unless you yourself are a Trotskyist, particularly of the Spartacist variety, who see these places as Degenerated Workers' States.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

I accept your criticism here. I was premature and arguing without logic. I withdraw the comparison.

[Peoples' War]

The issue is not that there is a transitory phase. The issue is that it should be a genuine phase of revolutionary transformation to Socialism. In no way was the NEP representative of this. It allowed the economy to grow and thus saved the political skin of the Bolsheviks. It had nothing to do with the transition to Socialism.
You're looking at Russia as though it was an advanced capitalist country, who had no reason to appease the petty-bourgeois peasantry. When in reality, industry was not developed, and the peasant class was a powerful one, so that could be enough to topple the revolutionary proletarian government.

You're ignoring the fact that a famine had occurred, that production, especially of food stuffs as well, was indeed in need of increasing.

Yes, revolutionary change is needed, but you are looking at Russia through the lens of advanced capitalist nation...as if it were Germany or Britain.


Key here is the term revolutionary transformation. The NEP is very clearly not part of any revolutionary transformation.
Once again, you are ignoring material conditions.

What would you have done? Do you even know the circumstances surrounding the NEP?


Where does this quote come from? It is pretty difficult to really respond to a Marx quote with no context, no referencing or anything. Critique of the Gotha Programme.


Why is it anti-Marxist to assume that, post-revolution, power can be handed straight to the newly politically conscious working class, ensuring that the brakes are not put on the revolutionary transformation to Socialism?Power was in the hands of the proletariat. Once again, however, we cannot expect there to be a perfect democracy in Russia considering the material conditions. Even left communists like Luxemburg seen that:

"It would be demanding something superhuman from Lenin and his comrades if we should expect of them that under such circumstances [referring to the material conditions of Russia] they should conjure forth the finest democracy, the most exemplary dictatorship of the proletariat and a flourishing socialist economy. "


Ah well that's okay then, if it's only a petty-bourgeois policy, we can overlook that, right? As i've already said, the NEP was necessary but for whom? Certainly not for the working class. It was necessary for the Bolsheviks to maintain political power. It was necessary, only due to the fact of the underdeveloped nature of Russian society at the time. \

So, who exactly would have taken power had the Bolsheviks not implemented the NEP?


Russia was clearly not ready for Socialism.Of course it wasn't.


The Bolshevik grab of power was premature.Really, taking the line of the Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks?

I can't understand Left communists who always make some stupid little jab at the Bolsheviks, as if it were some Blanquist coup that occurred in Russia. Have you read Trotsky's account of the revolution? What about Victor Serge, or John Reed?


They are the perfect historical example of the corruption of power.Under Stalin, yes. Lenin, no. Again, you avoid making a critical dialectical analysis of material conditions, and just whip out you're ultra-leftism, with no basis or solution to what Lenin could have, and should have done.


And no, i'm not anti-Marxist or reactionary or revisionist for this claim, because I believe - and have demonstrated many times - that there is always and everywhere a divorce of interests between the party that takes state power, and the wider working class. This is very demonstrable by even a cursory look at history. What instances do you have? I mean, you act as if Russia was an advanced capitalist nation, was not invaded by foreign troops during a civil war, did not have a large petty-bourgeois peasantry to deal with, did not have a famine, etc.


Your entire argument comes down to complete ignorance of material conditions.