To the adherents of degenerated worker's state theory

[Ostrinski]

I was wondering why you all still believe in this fossil of a theory given that its premises have been decimated by history.

Namely,

That Trotsky viewed Stalinist rule as weak and at best temporary and as such would probably be shattered by WWII,

And that Stalinism as a phenomenon was something that could only be the result of the degeneration of a genuinely healthy worker's revolution and worker's state.

We can see on the contrary that after WWII Stalinism was strengthened and expanded, not weakened. Also after WWII we saw Stalinist regimes popping up all over the place without worker's revolutions, without the workers in charge, and without the workers ever being in charge. But these were deformed worker's states (thanks for that gem, post-war 4th Int'l).

I think the fact that something as theoretically unsound as "deformed worker's state" could take dominance in an organization is testament to how much of a hold Trotsky still had over the 4th Int'l beyond the grave. It's a shame that they were never able to move on and draw their own conclusions and analyses in contrast to trying to reconcile post-war developments with a theory from the 30's that the events after Trotsky's death showed to be bankrupt.

[Geiseric]

The premise was proven correct seeing as stalinism restored capitalism, like Trotsky predicted, the when was the only thing he was wrong about. The label of workers state only means there is a planned economy, which is run on the basis of investing in things with high use value, instead of things to be sold (as in things with inflated exchange values, as we see disney souvenirs being made in Haiti and not the fSU) also problems capitalism has such as unemployment and poerty, which are necessary for capialism to work, never existed due to the absence of a class manipulating the working class in attempts to extract more surplus value.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

so you're more of a 'state-capitalist' type, I take it? :D

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I was wondering why you all still believe in this fossil of a theory given that its premises have been decimated by history.


Excuse me for not engaging the rest of this post, I just wanted to give my thoughts on Trotsky's theory for a little bit.

Although I haven't read the works where he explictially outlines the theory of degenerated worker's state, I have read a few other works of his where he begins to come to this conclusion. During this time period the only experiences of a revolution degenerating was the French Revolution, so without any experience of a failed socialist revolution Trotsky had little experience to go off of. So when he observed that the revolution degenerated under Stalin he tried to interpret this phenomena through the lense of the French Revolution, first comparing Stalin's reign to a Soviet Thermidor and then to that of Naploean Bonaparte. However one gets the feeling while reading these pieces that he is simply trying to find a category to fit the Russian experience in rather than coming up with something novel. In 1918 Anatoly Lunacharsky, in his assessment of Russian revolutionaries, wrote that Trotsky, despite being a great revolutionary leader, was "incomparably more orthodox than Lenin… he takes revolutionary Marxism and draws from it the conclusions applicable to a given situation. He is as bold as can be in opposing liberalism and semi-socialism, but he is no innovator." And I feel like this definitly applies to Trotsky's attempt at categorizing the Soviet Union. He seemed incapable of grasping the full implications of the faults of the Soviet project and tried to explain them in a bit of a clunky way. Although he later evolved from from the position of categorizing the Russian Revolution as Bonopartisan, this was largely due to the fact that he had been studying American sociology and under the influnce of Weber's idea that the bueracracy constituted a class, Trotsky adapted the ideas of American liberal socialogy to Marxism and used this catogorization of the bureaucracy to understand the Soviet Union. This is where the theory of degenerated workers state comes in. The idea that the blame can be assigned to the "bureaucratization" of the revolution. Of course, Trotsky doesn't really outline how or why the bureaucrats are counter revolutionary or when they took power. He merely took an idea foreign to Marxism and tried to absorb it into the Marxist tradition. (Not that this is a bad thing of course, Marxism is a science that requires constant revision)

However later in life it seems that just like his catogorization of Bonapartism was faulty, degenerated worker's state was also losing it's theoretical merit. The theory of the degenerated worker's state depends on the hope that the degenerated worker's state would support a foreign revolution for the sake of advancing it's own imperial interests, hence making it a tatical ally of the working class. However after Khrushchev came to power the Soviet Union began capitalist reforms and started talking of "peaceful coexistence" and "Competing with capitalism". At this point it became absurd to argue that a state that abolished the worker's democracy under Stalin and abolished subsidies for consumer goods could actually be an ally of the working class, expecually when it engaged in acts of blatant imperialism. Even Trotsky's wife herself began to object to the theory after marrying a Trotskyist veteran of the Spanish Civil war, In her Resignation from the Fourth International she wrote:


By considering that the Stalinist bureaucracy established workers states in these countries, you assign to it a progressive and even revolutionary role. By propagating this monstrous falsehood to the workers vanguard, you deny to the Fourth International all the basic reason for existence as the world party of the socialist revolution. In the past, we always considered Stalinism to be a counter-revolutionary force in every sense of the term. You no longer do so. But I continue to do so. In 1932 and 1933, the Stalinists, in order to justify their shameless capitulation to Hitlerism, declared that it would matter little if the Fascists came to power because socialism would come after and through the rule of Fascism. Only dehumanized brutes without a shred of socialist thought or spirit could have argued this way. Now, notwithstanding the revolutionary aims which animate you, you maintain that the despotic Stalinist reaction which has triumphed in Eastern Europe is one of the roads through which socialism will eventually come. This view marks an irredeemable break with the profoundest convictions always held by our movement and which I continue to share.



However I still disagree that Trotsky's theory is without merit. There was a definite point between Stalin's rule and Kruschev's economic reforms where an economy reigned without private property, where the government was in the process of abolishing the law of value. The abandonment of this project and the insitution of capitalist reforms clearly shows a massive change in the direction of the Soviet Union that is worth theorizing over, and in that case I don't think the theory holds weight.

Edit: This post was intended to go in a more pro-Trotsky direction but it ended up a bit more critical than I intended, ah well

[cantwealljustgetalong]

There was a definite point between Stalin's rule and Kruschev's economic reforms where an economy reigned without private property, where the government was in the process of abolishing the law of value

can you provide some sources for this? I was not under the impression that the Stalinist regime ever attempted to abolish the law of value and I'd like to learn about it.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

No problem. Skip to page 7

http://clogic.eserver.org/2010/Ball.pdf

Later in his life Stalin was profoundly influnced by Trotsky, having adopted his concept of industrialization from Trotsky's works. When archologists looked through Stalin's personal archives they found that his copy of Terrorism and Communism had the most notes of any other theoretical work that he owned. I suppose it could be argued that it was this influnce that led him to attempt to combat the wave of bureaucracy in the Soviet Union and to institute democratic reforms, though I admit that this is just speculation


(Article on Stalin's attempt at Democratic Reform)
http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

[Geiseric]

No problem. Skip to page 7

http://clogic.eserver.org/2010/Ball.pdf

Later in his life Stalin was profoundly influnced by Trotsky, having adopted his concept of industrialization from Trotsky's works. When archologists looked through Stalin's personal archives they found that his copy of Terrorism and Communism had the most notes of any other theoretical work that he owned. I suppose it could be argued that it was this influnce that led him to attempt to combat the wave of bureaucracy in the Soviet Union and to institute democratic reforms, though I admit that this is just speculation


(Article on Stalin's attempt at Democratic Reform)
http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

Sorry but Stalin was against industrialization and called it utopian in the 20s, while he supported the N.E.P. the fact the fSu could industrialize dispite the civil war with the Kulaks is a miracle in of itself.

[Let's Get Free]

The theory of a "deformed workers state," or a state being somewhere "in between" capitalism and socialism is laughably absurd and completely lacks any kind of Marxian analysis. The theory makes so little sense that it's hardly worth considering seriously: how could the adjective "workers" be applied to a regime where workers could be sent to a labor camp for turning up late for work and shot for going on strike?

Trotskyists say that Russia under Stalin was a "deformed workers state" because it had nationalization and planning, but if they were actually consistent in their application of the term, then every state on the planet is a degenerated workers state, since every state has some degree of nationalization and every single economy entails planning. I mean, GM is nationalized, it can't be owned by the bourgeois, it's owned by the worker's but managed by a dictatorial bureaucracy! Which makes the US a deformed workers state!

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

The theory of a "deformed workers state," or a state being somewhere "in between" capitalism and socialism is laughably absurd and completely lacks any kind of Marxian analysis. The theory makes so little sense that it's hardly worth considering seriously: how could the adjective "workers" be applied to a regime where workers could be sent to a labor camp for turning up late for work and shot for going on strike?

Trotskyists say that Russia under Stalin was a "deformed workers state" because it had nationalization and planning, but if they were actually consistent in their application of the term, then every state on the planet is a degenerated workers state, since every state has some degree of nationalization and every single economy entails planning. I mean, GM is nationalized, it can't be owned by the bourgeois, it's owned by the worker's but managed by a dictatorial bureaucracy! Which makes the US a deformed workers state!
You know, if you're going to criticize Trotskyist theory, you should at least get your terminology straight.

First off, the term "deformed worker's state" refers specifically to those countries in which the working class never held power, but private property is abolished. Cuba would fit into this category, as would North Korea and the other Soviet "satellites". Trotsky obviously did not create this term, as the events that made this term occurred long after he died. I admit that I do not care much for this term, but to explain why would be too large a digression.

The term "degenerated worker's state" is the category which the Soviet Union resides, as the abolition of private property and the "central planning" system was brought into being by an actual proletarian revolution (Broody seems to have missed this in his explanation). This was Trotsky's chief reason for referring to it as a "worker's state", despite its later bureaucratic deformations. I would suggest reading "The Revolution Betrayed" to get a better handle of the material.

As for GM, while the bourgeoisie doesn't technically "own" it, we have to remember that the class interests of the state lie entirely with them. Your method of comparing the US and Stalinist Russia is rather erratic; while you're essentially comparing apples and oranges, you're also throwing them around without any care as to whom they hit.

[Let's Get Free]

You know, if you're going to criticize Trotskyist theory, you should at least get your terminology straight.

First off, the term "deformed worker's state" refers specifically to those countries in which the working class never held power, but private property is abolished. Cuba would fit into this category, as would North Korea and the other Soviet "satellites". Trotsky obviously did not create this term, as the events that made this term occurred long after he died. I admit that I do not care much for this term, but to explain why would be too large a digression.

My bad, I thought the terms were interchangeable


The term "degenerated worker's state" is the category which the Soviet Union resides, as the abolition of private property and the "central planning" system was brought into being by an actual proletarian revolution (Broody seems to have missed this in his explanation). This was Trotsky's chief reason for referring to it as a "worker's state", despite its later bureaucratic deformations. I would suggest reading "The Revolution Betrayed" to get a better handle of the material.

But there was indeed private property in the ussr. It is not vital to capitalism that there should be some de jure legal ownership of capital by private individuals. This is a bourgeois concept of what capitalism is about. Marxists do not hold this narrow legalistic notion of capitalism. As for "central planning," why do some trotskyists go on and on about a friggin "planned economy"? It drives me up the wall. There was a far greater degree of decentralized decisionmaking at the level of state enterprises (without which the SU would probably have collapsed much earlier). also, the so called "plans" were never strictly fulfilled. The economy guided the plans, not the other way around. And as I've already mentioned, capitalist economies require extensive planning.


As for GM, while the bourgeoisie doesn't technically "own" it, we have to remember that the class interests of the state lie entirely with them. Your method of comparing the US and Stalinist Russia is rather erratic; while you're essentially comparing apples and oranges, you're also throwing them around without any care as to whom they hit.

I made this comparison because Trotskyists seem to define socialism the same way the bourgeois do- state ownership of the means of production, regardless of the control the workers have over that state.

[blake 3:17]

I believe the idea of a deformed workers state emerged with the victory of the anti-fascist partisans in Yugoslavia.

I'm not particularly interested in debating jargon. In a more positive direction, I would suggest thoughtful reflections on all attempts to build socialist societies.

Rather than sectarian debates, I'd recommend Mike Lebowitz on a more strategic set of questions.


Every socialist in the 21st century should try to answer two questions.

First, why don’t workers put an end to capitalism – given its destruction of human beings and the environment (something Marx was so conscious of). In particular, given the declining standards of life for decades in the United States, the economic disaster in Europe and the current crises, how is it that the system is reproduced without a significant challenge by the working class?

Second, why did the working class within what has become known as “real socialism” [the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe] allow those systems to revert to capitalism without resistance from the working classes, who were presumably its beneficiaries?
These two questions are interrelated both in practice and theory. In terms of practice, the failure within capitalism certainly had its impact upon the shaping of “real socialism”. And, in turn, the character of “real socialism” contributed to the view of workers in capitalism that socialism was not a desirable alternative. I can recall many arguments about socialism with my father, who was a machinist, and I remember in particular his comment, “Why would I want a bigger, stronger boss?”

Full article: http://www.solidarityeconomy.net/2013/01/15/socialism-for-the-21st-century-re-inventing-and-renewing-the-struggle/

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

My bad, I thought the terms were interchangeable



But there was indeed private property in the ussr. It is not vital to capitalism that there should be some de jure legal ownership of capital by private individuals. This is a bourgeois concept of what capitalism is about. Marxists do not hold this narrow legalistic notion of capitalism. As for "central planning," why do some trotskyists go on and on about a friggin "planned economy"? It drives me up the wall. There was a far greater degree of decentralized decisionmaking at the level of state enterprises (without which the SU would probably have collapsed much earlier). also, the so called "plans" were never strictly fulfilled. The economy guided the plans, not the other way around. And as I've already mentioned, capitalist economies require extensive planning.
Sorry, I misrepresented myself. In my last post, I meant to emphasize that the the Soviet State is a worker's state because was created by an actual proletarian revolution, which as I said, was the linchpin of Trotsky's analysis. You're correct that "planned economy" is not indicative of socialism at all. In fact, nationalization is quite irrelevant by itself, since capitalist countries can use it for their own purposes. Here's a far better (http://www.permanent-revolution.org/archives/opportunism_empiricism.pdf) (but unfortunately longer) sum-up of what I was really trying to say:


The point therefore is to establish scientifically the real relations between classes and not to arbitrarily and ahistorically apply ‘criteria’. No matter how tempting (because it provides an easy recourse to a “tried and true” formula), application of ‘criteria’ in this manner is an obstacle to a scientific cognition of the dynamics of the Cuban state. Rather, it is necessary to investigate the historical formation of the state in its contradictory relations with the world economic system in order to determine its exact nature. Therefore, we move from questions posing ‘criteria’ such as nationalization, to the question of how and in what capacity did the working class ever exercise power through its own organs and institutions. What made the Soviet Union a workers’ state was not that it fulfilled certain abstract criteria for a workers’ state, such as the nationalization of industry. As is noted in the document [Opportunism and Empiricism], other regimes that no one recognized as a workers’ state were capable of large-scale nationalization. Rather, it was the originating experience of the proletarian revolution led by the Bolsheviks and the exercise of workers power through its own autonomous instruments of rule, the Soviets, that was the historical content in the characterization of the Soviet Union as workers’ state, despite its later bureaucratic deformations. No comparable event ever took place in Cuba. Nor could it, as the Castro leadership, while undoubtedly leaning on the working class for support, was essentially a petty-bourgeois formation based on the peasantry. To this day, no independent organizations of the working class are permitted in Cuba.

I made this comparison because Trotskyists seem to define socialism the same way the bourgeois do- state ownership of the means of production, regardless of the control the workers have over that state.
Not this Trotskyist. What you're objecting to are the empiricist arguments used by Joseph Hansen, which I do not subscribe to at all. I would recommend the document I linked, for it provides an excellent insight into the theoretical clash that occurred in the Fourth International after Castro took power. But if you find the document too long, the introduction will suffice.

Sorry again for the confusion.

[Art Vandelay]

I prescribe to a very particular notion of a degenerated worker's state; however it is not in the same sense that Trotskyists do. By the end of his life, Trotsky was close to abandoning the theory himself.

[Ostrinski]

I prescribe to a very particular notion of a degenerated worker's state; however it is not in the same sense that Trotskyists do. By the end of his life, Trotsky was close to abandoning the theory himself.What, when he was supporting Soviet aggression in Finland?

[Art Vandelay]

What, when he was supporting Soviet aggression in Finland?

It was in 1940 that he was close to abandoning the theory. I'm not really that knowledgeable about the situation in Finland. I think that given his role in the founding of the USSR, it made him hold some reactionary positions due to nostalgia.

[Ostrinski]

Here is what those that say he was close to abandoning the degenerated worker's state theory toward the end of his life cite: this idea of the "counter-revolutionary worker's state" seen in In Defense of Marxism:

Some voices cry out: “If we continue to recognize the USSR as a workers’ state, we will have to establish a new category: the counter-revolutionary workers’ state.” This argument attempts to shock our imagination by opposing a good programmatic norm to a miserable, mean, even repugnant reality. But haven’t we observed from day to day since 1923 how the Soviet state has played a more and more counter-revolutionary role on the international arena? Have we forgotten the experience of the Chinese Revolution, of the 1926 general strike in England and finally the very fresh experience of the Spanish Revolution? There are two completely counter-revolutionary workers’ internationals. These critics have apparently forgotten this “category.” The trade unions of France, Great Britain, the United States and other countries support completely the counterrevolutionary politics of their bourgeoisie. This does not prevent us from labeling them trade unions, from supporting their progressive steps and from defending them against the bourgeoisie. Why is it impossible to employ the same method with the counter-revolutionary workers’ state? In the last analysis a workers’ state is a trade union which has conquered power. The difference in attitude in these two cases is explainable by the simple fact that the trade unions have a long history and we have become accustomed to consider them as realities and not simply as “categories” in our program. But, as regards the workers’ state there is being evinced an inability to learn to approach it as a real historical fact which has not subordinated itself to our program.Here we see some genuine cognitive dissonance on the part of Mr. Bronshtein. Okay, so you acknowledge that the Soviet Union has degenerated to the point of becoming a counter-revolutionary establishment, congratulations, that is to be commended. But you are still not willing to break with this "worker's state" lunacy!

And today the radical left still pays the price for comrade Lev not overcoming his emotional attachments to something that he was instrumental in helping to build.

[Ostrinski]

It was in 1940 that he was close to abandoning the theory. I'm not really that knowledgeable about the situation in Finland. I think that given his role in the founding of the USSR, it made him hold some reactionary positions due to nostalgia.The quote that I just cited above, comes from In Defense of Marxism, the same work that he derides those that opposed the Soviet involvement in the Winter War within the SWP (US) as the "petty bourgeois opposition."

[Geiseric]

For the credit of the soviets, Finland was either going to become axis controlled or soviet controlled. It had a completely counter revolutionary government as well which was happy to recieve Nazi aid after refusing several non aggression pacts with the fSU. It was more like a pre emptive move for control of a strategic location, when the war was about to start.

Afghanistan is a different story though, as was the soviet oppression of the eastern bloc countries. Finland in specific though could of been seen as a theater of WW2 with a western backed, as in France, Germany, and England backed proxy army vs. the USSR, the Finnish army and voulanteer regiments later formed the vanguard of fascist control once the Nazis invaded their countries, with Denmark being a prime example of Winter War veterans forming fascist militias. But regardless it was a theater that was fought in so one or more western country could eventually roll through Finland just like during the Civil war.

[Aurora]

It's readily acknowledged that Bonapartism is a real phenomenon which arises when there is no class strong enough to decisively rule the state and the bureaucracy steps in to protect and expand it's privileges, Trotsky's theory is that a workers revolution in a backwards country which destroyed the capitalist's power but in which the workers were also exhausted or destroyed lead to the bureaucracy stepping in and taking control of the state the workers had created. Not so outlandish i think.

You say Trotsky's theory has been decimated by history, can you give examples? You say above that Trotsky was wrong that stalinism was weak and temporary, yet there is no SU today and it vanished without much of a struggle. Trotsky's prediction in the 30's that either the working class would throw out the bureaucracy or the bureaucracy would reestablish the bourgeois power was proven correct.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Sorry but Stalin was against industrialization and called it utopian in the 20s, while he supported the N.E.P. the fact the fSu could industrialize dispite the civil war with the Kulaks is a miracle in of itself.

And after the famine happened he reversed his views and gradually began reading Trotsky, hence part of the reason why he adapted industrialization.

[Geiseric]

And after the famine happened he reversed his views and gradually began reading Trotsky, hence part of the reason why he adapted industrialization.

The famines happened as a result of Stalin's and the Right Opposition's failure to recognize the Kulaks as a potential threat, despite warnings from the left opposition about an oncoming war with the Kulaks. Anybody who supported collectivization and industrialization in the 20's was shot jailed or exiled. Stalin industrialized in a hasty, clumsy, bureaucratic way after the Kulaks and the Right Opposition did what every capitalist should be expected to do, namely hold the cities at ransom with starvation. If grain seizures happened with the red army on the offensive, coordinated against Kulaks only, not against entire poor farmer communities like Stalin did, the process would of been much smoother and successful, without the collapses caused by the need to do the 5 year plan in 4 years.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The famines happened as a result of Stalin's and the Right Opposition's failure to recognize the Kulaks as a potential threat, despite warnings from the left opposition about an oncoming war with the Kulaks. Anybody who supported collectivization and industrialization in the 20's was shot jailed or exiled. Stalin industrialized in a hasty, clumsy, bureaucratic way after the Kulaks and the Right Opposition did what every capitalist should be expected to do, namely hold the cities at ransom with starvation. If grain seizures happened with the red army on the offensive, coordinated against Kulaks only, not against entire poor farmer communities like Stalin did, the process would of been much smoother and successful, without the collapses caused by the need to do the 5 year plan in 4 years.

Yea, and as I said, at first he rejected industrialization and later he embraced it. I don't see what you are trying to get here, he had an opinion and he changed it later in life. Trotsky was a Menshlevic once after all

[Geiseric]

Yea, and as I said, at first he rejected industrialization and later he embraced it. I don't see what you are trying to get here, he had an opinion and he changed it later in life. Trotsky was a Menshlevic once after all

So you'll admit that stalin fudged up in the 20's by allowing the Kulaks to own their land for as long as they did? And that he actively supported capitalism in that period?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

So you'll admit that stalin fudged up in the 20's by allowing the Kulaks to own their land for as long as they did? And that he actively supported capitalism in that period?

Yep.


We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon.

But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations.

Liberalism manifests itself in various ways.

To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.

~Mao


Every revolutionary has made his mistakes, including the ones we are fond of. When I say I am a Maoist, I do not mean that I support a certain percentage of Mao's actions that qualifys him to be my personal hero. Nor does it mean that I regard Mao as a prophet whose every word was a cipher of a pure theory. Rather,we Maoists see Marxist-Leninist-Maoism as a theoretical framework that was developed from the concrete experiences of the working class. Marxist Leninist Maoism is a framework which serves as a Marxism beyond Marx, A Leninism beyond Lenin, and a Maoism beyond Mao. And understanding that this framework was developed by the concrete experience of the working class itself, we have no problem with criticizing individuals attached to this class struggle.

Or in short, yes I oppose Stalin when he was wrong just like I oppose Mao when he is wrong, because doing otherwise would be inconsistent with Maoism.

And for the kicks and giggles:

Combat Liberalism, otherwise known as the eleven commandments of Maoism
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm

The article that refers to the concept that I was refering to, the Marxism beyond Marx, ect
http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2011/09/marxism-beyond-marx-leninism-beyond.html

[Zulu]

Trotsky's prediction in the 30's that either the working class would throw out the bureaucracy or the bureaucracy would reestablish the bourgeois power was proven correct.

The problem is that to do that, the bureaucracy had to trash all things Stalinist first, 'cause they were kinda getting in the way.

[Zulu]

allowing the Kulaks to own their land for as long as they did

Check your facts. Kulaks never owned any land after 1918.

[Lucretia]

I was wondering why you all still believe in this fossil of a theory given that its premises have been decimated by history.

Namely,

That Trotsky viewed Stalinist rule as weak and at best temporary and as such would probably be shattered by WWII,

And that Stalinism as a phenomenon was something that could only be the result of the degeneration of a genuinely healthy worker's revolution and worker's state.

We can see on the contrary that after WWII Stalinism was strengthened and expanded, not weakened. Also after WWII we saw Stalinist regimes popping up all over the place without worker's revolutions, without the workers in charge, and without the workers ever being in charge. But these were deformed worker's states (thanks for that gem, post-war 4th Int'l).

I think the fact that something as theoretically unsound as "deformed worker's state" could take dominance in an organization is testament to how much of a hold Trotsky still had over the 4th Int'l beyond the grave. It's a shame that they were never able to move on and draw their own conclusions and analyses in contrast to trying to reconcile post-war developments with a theory from the 30's that the events after Trotsky's death showed to be bankrupt.

Two things: first, unless you're an anarchist that believes that Lenin and Trotsky were capitalists who led a bourgeois revolution, you must necessarily believe that for a period the workers' state established by Lenin and Trotsky was degenerated, sliding back toward capitalism. Whether the reinstatement of capitalist class rule happened in the 1930s or 1990s is really the crucial question, and I think it's obvious which is correct. And second, Trotsky was NOT a Pabloist and did not articulate anything that could be construed as deformed workers' state theory.

[Art Vandelay]

Two things: first, unless you're an anarchist that believes that Lenin and Trotsky were capitalists who led a bourgeois revolution, you must necessarily believe that for a period the workers' state established by Lenin and Trotsky was degenerated, sliding back toward capitalism. Whether the reinstatement of capitalist class rule happened in the 1930s or 1990s is really the crucial question, and I think it's obvious which is correct. And second, Trotsky was NOT a Pabloist and did not articulate anything that could be construed as deformed workers' state theory.

This is entirely my position. Is it possible that a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat could transform into a state capitalist (or non-mode of production if you prefer) overnight? I think its pretty clear that this is a ridiculous assessment of the events that transpired in the USSR. It is therefor certain that the dotp of the proletariat degenerated into something completely different. When exactly the switch happened is debatable, the fact that it degenerated is not, in my opinion.

[Prof. Oblivion]

The famines happened as a result of Stalin's and the Right Opposition's failure to recognize the Kulaks as a potential threat, despite warnings from the left opposition about an oncoming war with the Kulaks. Anybody who supported collectivization and industrialization in the 20's was shot jailed or exiled. Stalin industrialized in a hasty, clumsy, bureaucratic way after the Kulaks and the Right Opposition did what every capitalist should be expected to do, namely hold the cities at ransom with starvation. If grain seizures happened with the red army on the offensive, coordinated against Kulaks only, not against entire poor farmer communities like Stalin did, the process would of been much smoother and successful, without the collapses caused by the need to do the 5 year plan in 4 years.

Do you have any sources for demographic data, and a clearer explanation of what constitutes a "kulak"?

[CyM]

Here is what those that say he was close to abandoning the degenerated worker's state theory toward the end of his life cite: this idea of the "counter-revolutionary worker's state" seen in In Defense of Marxism:
Here we see some genuine cognitive dissonance on the part of Mr. Bronshtein. Okay, so you acknowledge that the Soviet Union has degenerated to the point of becoming a counter-revolutionary establishment, congratulations, that is to be commended. But you are still not willing to break with this "worker's state" lunacy!

And today the radical left still pays the price for comrade Lev not overcoming his emotional attachments to something that he was instrumental in helping to build.
You ignore his comparison in that very quote the counterrevolutionary bureaucracy of the trade unions.

[Ostrinski]

Two things: first, unless you're an anarchist that believes that Lenin and Trotsky were capitalists who led a bourgeois revolution, you must necessarily believe that for a period the workers' state established by Lenin and Trotsky was degenerated, sliding back toward capitalism. Whether the reinstatement of capitalist class rule happened in the 1930s or 1990s is really the crucial question, and I think it's obvious which is correct. And second, Trotsky was NOT a Pabloist and did not articulate anything that could be construed as deformed workers' state theory.Indeed.

I think the term "degenerated workers' state" actually applies nicely to the Soviet Union in the 20's, when the workers were in the process of losing their political power and means of independent political organization but in the 30's the process was complete and the new state-capitalist class crystallized.

But degenerated workers' state is a political label, not an economic one, and plainly even if we could apply the label to the Soviet Union in the 1920's, that doesn't rule out that ultimately the capitalist mode of production still existed maybe not in property form in value form at least.

And I of course concur with you on your last point which I expressed in my OP. I meant that the fact that something as ridiculous as the deformed workers' state theory demonstrated perfectly how the post-war 4th International desperately clung to this degenerated workers' state dogma in the face of the deterioration of its premises.

[Ostrinski]

You ignore his comparison in that very quote the counterrevolutionary bureaucracy of the trade unions.I didn't ignore it, I just didn't see how it was relevant to the discussion. I was addressing what I said to those that say that Trotsky was somewhere near abandoning the theory of degenerated workers' state.

[CyM]

You did ignore it, because you took that quote and said

Okay, so you acknowledge that the Soviet Union has degenerated to the point of becoming a counter-revolutionary establishment, congratulations, that is to be commended. But you are still not willing to break with this "worker's state" lunacy!
Which misses the point Trotsky was making.

Trotsky did not break with the degenerated Soviet Union for the same reason we don't cross picket lines called by the counterrevolutionary bureaucracy of the trade unions.

[CyM]

But degenerated workers' state is a political label, not an economic one, and plainly even if we could apply the label to the Soviet Union in the 1920's, that doesn't rule out that ultimately the capitalist mode of production still existed maybe not in property form in value form at least.

How can capitalism exist without the property form of capitalism?