What relevance does the concept "degenerated workers state" have post 1989?

[Popular Front of Judea]

I am not posting this to troll. Earlier in my life I passed through a state capitalist Trotskyist organization that did not embrace this concept.
So it is a novelty to me.

I am curious about the utility of this concept with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the country that Trotsky back in the 1930s originally applied it to. Why does it continue to be such a subject of interest now?

[Zanthorus]

A lot of people associate Marxism with the Soviet Union, so it makes good sense from a propaganda point of view to have a clear line of thought on Soviet history. Most Marxist organisations exist for purposes of activism or propagandising instead of discussion, ergo they spend a lot of energy talking about the Soviet Union.

[Popular Front of Judea]

A lot of people associate Marxism with the Soviet Union, so it makes good sense from a propaganda point of view to have a clear line of thought on Soviet history. Most Marxist organisations exist for purposes of activism or propagandising instead of discussion, ergo they spend a lot of energy talking about the Soviet Union.

Let's grant that the SU was indeed a "degenerated workers state". What impact does that position have on your politics today since the SU has joined the Holy Roman Empire as a historical entity?

[Geiseric]

It means that Trotsky was right the whole time and that socialism wasn't achieved in the soviet union. It verifies perminant revolution and shows that internationalism is the only way a revolution in any country can survive.

[Kalinych]

Not to derail the thread but, what is the difference between a deformed worker's state and a degenerated worker's state? Wouldn't the relevance of the concept be that a degenerated worker's state could exist again in the future?

[Fred]

It still has practical significance with regards to China, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos and N. Korea. The October Revolution was the only proletarian revolution in history. What issued forth is very important to understand and study. The left has a very unfortunate tendency to repeat the same mistakes, over and over and over and over and over. . . :ohmy:

[blake 3:17]

Not to derail the thread but, what is the difference between a deformed worker's state and a degenerated worker's state? Wouldn't the relevance of the concept be that a degenerated worker's state could exist again in the future?

I was going to write my own definition, but, Hey! There's The Internet!

From wikipedia, and this a fine answer:
The term "degenerated workers' state" is commonly used to refer only to the Soviet Union.

The term deformed workers' state was coined by Trotskyists of the Fourth International to describe those states, like the Soviet satellite states of Eastern Europe as well as China, which are or were based upon collectivised means of production, but in which the working class never held direct political power. The two terms are therefore similar as they both describe states where the bourgeoisie no longer holds power, where the means of production has been socialised and where an unaccountable bureaucratic elite now holds the political reins, where they differ is in the history of how this situation has arisen: the bureaucratic degeneration of a genuine workers' democracy, as in Russia; or the creation of a deformed workers state resulting from the overthrow of bourgeois rule and ownership by some force other than the mass action of the organised working class, such as an invasion, a guerrilla army, or a military coup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerated_workers'_state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformed_workers%27_state

[blake 3:17]

At the OP -- I joined the USFI after 1991 as part of the regroupment current, and we just saw it as red herring.

For activists it is a real who cares issue. It's kind of interesting from a theoretical perspective, but so are many things...

[Popular Front of Judea]

It still has practical significance with regards to China, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos and N. Korea. The October Revolution was the only proletarian revolution in history. What issued forth is very important to understand and study. The left has a very unfortunate tendency to repeat the same mistakes, over and over and over and over and over. . . :ohmy:

No argument that the October Revolution was a singular event. What occurred in St. Petersburg in 1917 has not been repeated since. So what lessons -- if any -- can we take away from that historic event? Since the SU has run its course aren't we back to where we were in 1914?

[Misericordia]

It means that Trotsky was right the whole time and that socialism wasn't achieved in the soviet union. It verifies perminant revolution and shows that internationalism is the only way a revolution in any country can survive.
No, not really. Permanent revolution has nothing to do with and how is "internationalism" relevant here? Is that some sort of attack on Socialism in One Country? If you were to take your head out of your ass you would find that the theory of Socialism in One Country was abandoned in 1945 when the Red Army liberated Europe from Nazism and began the construction of socialism in Easter Europe. But yeah let's contrast the Trotsksyist notion of what "internationalism" is, which consists of nothing more than irrelevant Trot sects issuing verbal support here or there for other Trot sects in other countries, and the "Stalinist" notion, which consisted of aiding communist movements in other countries with hundreds of billions of dollars, weapons, ammunition, all sorts of vehicles and aircrafts, food and supplies, political, economical and military advisers and even combat and support army units who have died in the dozens of thousands for the international communist cause. Indeed, contrast the two and tell me again who the real internationalists are.

As for the OP, OP: the concept has never had any relevance in the real world, has none right now and more likely than not will never have any in the future. Trotskyists are not known for influencing political events.

[Zukunftsmusik]

No argument that the October Revolution was a singular event. What occurred in St. Petersburg in 1917 has not been repeated since. So what lessons -- if any -- can we take away from that historic event? Since the SU has run its course aren't we back to where we were in 1914?

Seeing that there aren't any great wars going on, or any risk of it as of yet, we're not really "back to where we were in 1914". History isn't circular, nor does it repeat itself (at least not in a literal sense).

[Popular Front of Judea]

[QUOTE=Misericordia;2668589] Indeed, contrast the two and tell me again who the real internationalists are.[QUOTE]

'Were'. Past tense.

[Popular Front of Judea]

My point is that the SU was a outcome of the First World War. Arguably the dissolution of the SU was the last aftershock of it. No history doesn't literally repeat itself ... but there is a readily confirmable cyclical aspect to it.


Seeing that there aren't any great wars going on, or any risk of it as of yet, we're not really "back to where we were in 1914". History isn't circular, nor does it repeat itself (at least not in a literal sense).

[Zukunftsmusik]

My point is that the SU was a product of the First World War. Arguably the dissolution of the SU was the last aftershock of it.No history doesn't literally repeat itself ... but there is a readily confirmable cyclical aspect to it.

But that doesn't put us back in 1914, namely because the SU have "happened". (You couldn't have asked - as you did - if we could learn something from the SU/October revolution in 1914). Although there might be a "cyclical aspect" to history, I don't think the situation now are comparable to 1914/17. So even though the SU has risen and fallen, history hasn't gone full circle (or rather cycle).

[Popular Front of Judea]

But that doesn't put us back in 1914, namely because the SU have "happened". (You couldn't have asked - as you did - if we could learn something from the SU/October revolution in 1914). Although there might be a "cyclical aspect" to history, I don't think the situation now are comparable to 1914/17. So even though the SU has risen and fallen, history hasn't gone full circle (or rather cycle).

True. We never return exactly back to our starting point. Although we have a wealth distribution in my country similar to that existed in 1929 we have not exactly returned to 1929. The Great Depression is now part of our historical memory.

[argeiphontes]

the Red Army liberated Europe from Nazism and began the construction of socialism in Easter Europe.


Like when the USSR signed the Ribentropp-Molotov pact? Speaking as a Polish person, it sounds like a land grab between dictators to me. Lots of lip service in Poland was given to "building socialism" or "building communism" and you can plainly see how that worked out in 1989. When you break a glass, water spills all over the place, but jello doesn't. That might be a lesson worth learning.

[Fred]

No, not really. Permanent revolution has nothing to do with and how is "internationalism" relevant here? Is that some sort of attack on Socialism in One Country? If you were to take your head out of your ass you would find that the theory of Socialism in One Country was abandoned in 1945 when the Red Army liberated Europe from Nazism and began the construction of socialism in Easter Europe. But yeah let's contrast the Trotsksyist notion of what "internationalism" is, which consists of nothing more than irrelevant Trot sects issuing verbal support here or there for other Trot sects in other countries, and the "Stalinist" notion, which consisted of aiding communist movements in other countries with hundreds of billions of dollars, weapons, ammunition, all sorts of vehicles and aircrafts, food and supplies, political, economical and military advisers and even combat and support army units who have died in the dozens of thousands for the international communist cause. Indeed, contrast the two and tell me again who the real internationalists are.

As for the OP, OP: the concept has never had any relevance in the real world, has none right now and more likely than not will never have any in the future. Trotskyists are not known for influencing political events.
Hmmm, shouldn't your descriptor be non-doctrinaire Stalinst? Of course that would be an oxymoron.

Stalin and his political heirs, never abandoned SIOC. Do you think anyone believes that Stalin was hot to overturn capitalism in Poland? He wanted a military buffer with the West, and got one. That is all well and good. But the Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe were corrupt and bureaucratic from their birth. As for the Stalinist aid to other struggles -- sometimes it was a very good thing. Sometimes, as in Spain in the thirties, they fucking strangled a workers revolution and helped usher in reaction. But even when they were, more or less, doing the right thing, such as aid to Vietnam when it was at war with the US, they were pretty stingy with their help. They gave more advanced weaponry to Nasser in Egypt to fight Israel than they gave to the Vietnamese.

At bottom, Internationalism consists of fighting for world proletarian revolution, and being willing, to paraphrase Lenin, to sacrifice your own national revolution for the advancement of the world revolution. That is wholly missing from Stalin's activities from 1924 onward. It was a tremendous act of internationalism to dissolve the Comintern, wasn't it. And not an accident that Tito, Mao, Castro, et al. never formed another International.

I love how Stalinists bring up the Soviet victory over the Wehrmacht in WWII as proof of great leadership. Stalin's leadership of the USSR during the war was terrible. They won in spite of him. And yes, it is a great thing that they did.

BTW, a lot of Left Oppositionists died in prison camps set up by comrade Stalin. Many others were executed. A huge number of people that would have fought against the Germans were exterminated before they had the chance.

[cliffhanger]

The function of the theory is to provide a reason to defend, at some level, certain countries claiming to be socialist in situations where they are under threat. This is a recruiting strategy. For Trotsky the question was why one should defend the USSR against Hitler in a possible war, even though the USSR wasn't led by Trotskyists. His answer was that the possible invasion of Russia would allow a perfect opportunity for a Trotskyist coup, and that the "degenerated" worker's state needed to be defended.

It's useful to note that a large number of Trotskyists disagreed with this, and decided to take pro-Hitler positions such as opposing defence of the Soviet Union. After Stalin defeated Hitler, and the revelations about the Holocaust, it became obvious to most people that Hitler was a unique threat, and the Trotskyist movement shifted back towards being anti-Hitler in words.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Like when the USSR signed the Ribentropp-Molotov pact? Speaking as a Polish person, it sounds like a land grab between dictators to me. Lots of lip service in Poland was given to "building socialism" or "building communism" and you can plainly see how that worked out in 1989. When you break a glass, water spills all over the place, but jello doesn't. That might be a lesson worth learning.

With a focus on literacy and heavy industry the Stalinist occupation regimes did do a passable job of building capitalism. Countries like Bulgaria probably benefited more from that than say Czechoslovakia or Germany however.

[cliffhanger]

the Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe were corrupt and bureaucratic from their birth.How corrupt and bureaucratic were the post-war Trotskyist regimes? I'd love to read a few books about them, they probably did much better.

[Geiseric]

No, not really. Permanent revolution has nothing to do with and how is "internationalism" relevant here? Is that some sort of attack on Socialism in One Country? If you were to take your head out of your ass you would find that the theory of Socialism in One Country was abandoned in 1945 when the Red Army liberated Europe from Nazism and began the construction of socialism in Easter Europe.

I stopped reading there. There wasn't socialism in any of those countries, the Red Army had to crush genuine revolutions against Stalinism in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Stalin basically sold Greece to England and stopped supporting the revolutionaries there. Stalinists were also instrumental in supporting De gaulle in france when there was basically a revolutionary situation against him.

[Popular Front of Judea]

How corrupt and bureaucratic were the post-war Trotskyist regimes? I'd love to read a few books about them, they probably did much better.

Nice quip but rather irrelevant. "Actually existing socialism" no longer exists.

[cliffhanger]

Nice quip but rather irrelevant. Actually existing socialism no longer exists.

It lives on in the hearts of all of us who follow Stalin?

[cliffhanger]

It's not irrelevant because Stalin had a real track record of success that built socialism in the USSR and led to people's democracies being built across much of Eastern Europe and Asia. Trotskyists have nothing to show for their ideology other than a history of wrecking.

[argeiphontes]

With a focus on literacy and heavy industry the Stalinist occupation regimes did do a passable job of building capitalism. Countries like Bulgaria probably benefited more from that than say Czechoslovakia or Germany however.

Absolutely. There was plenty of perfectly-good capital for oligarchs to grab. The former nobility somehow landed on their feet after the collapse, too. Before the war, Poland was largely rural & etc.

edit @cliffhanger: It depends how you define 'success', 'socialism', and 'democracy.' To say that the Polish People's Republic was a worker's democracy requires some theoretical work, doesn't it?

[cliffhanger]

edit @cliffhanger: It depends how you define 'success', 'socialism', and 'democracy.' To say that the Polish People's Republic was a worker's democracy requires some theoretical work, doesn't it?

Yes, that's true. I think I'm going to read more about Poland. I shouldn't jump to conclusions. However, I think it was a good thing there were people's democracies like Poland. I'd be pretty happy if Trotskyists ever had a success, but they will never be successful, because their line is wrong.

[blake 3:17]

If you can get your hands on it the anthology edited by Tariq Ali, Stalinism, is a fine read.

Some crazy stuff in there.

Edited to add:

Apparently I had the title wrong... Not sure from editions. It's just been reissued by Haymarket!

http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/The-Stalinist-Legacy I used to get it from the library when I had access to libraries with books like that... Maybe go coroporate and by a book from those capitalist Haymarket folks

[ChrisK]

It means that Trotsky was right the whole time and that socialism wasn't achieved in the soviet union. It verifies perminant revolution and shows that internationalism is the only way a revolution in any country can survive.

If it means that Trotsky was right, then Max Shachtman was right about bureaucratic collectivism and Tony Cliff was right about state capitalism. Your evidence does not support your conclusion.

[Geiseric]

If it means that Trotsky was right, then Max Shachtman was right about bureaucratic collectivism and Tony Cliff was right about state capitalism. Your evidence does not support your conclusion.

Schachtman and Cliff were hacks. They both used those theories, all nuances included, to further solidify their respective sects to make them look like they were more capable Marxists than the actual 4th international, which they clearly weren't, they just led a bunch of splits about B.S. which weakened the Trotskyist movement. I'm fairly new to the leftist scene but that's what it looks like to me. Cliff wasn't even involved in the 4th International so I don't know how he actually affiliates with Trotskyism other than disagreeing with the DWS theory and founding the British SWP which is VERY different from the original U.S. SWP, which was founded by Schachtman and James P. Cannon. Is it just coincidence that they were named the same things?

[ChrisK]

Schachtman and Cliff were hacks. They both used those theories, all nuances included, to further solidify their respective sects to make them look like they were more capable Marxists than the actual 4th international, which they clearly weren't, they just led a bunch of splits about B.S. which weakened the Trotskyist movement. I'm fairly new to the leftist scene but that's what it looks like to me. Cliff wasn't even involved in the 4th International so I don't know how he actually affiliates with Trotskyism other than disagreeing with the DWS theory and founding the British SWP which is VERY different from the original U.S. SWP, which was founded by Schachtman and James P. Cannon. Is it just coincidence that they were named the same things?

First, you didn't respond to the force of my criticism. The Soviet Union's collapse is evidence for all of those theories.

Two, if you don't know anything about Cliff why are you criticizing him? His work on state capitalism is probably the best researched analysis of the Soviet Union. This book can be found here (http://marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/index.htm).

[Red_Banner]

I stopped reading there. There wasn't socialism in any of those countries, the Red Army had to crush genuine revolutions against Stalinism in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Stalin basically sold Greece to England and stopped supporting the revolutionaries there. Stalinists were also instrumental in supporting De gaulle in france when there was basically a revolutionary situation against him.


Stalin gave up West Berlin eventhough the Red Army captured the whole city too.

Didn't he also give up the Soviet controlled sections of Austria?

[synthesis]

Schachtman and Cliff were hacks. They both used those theories, all nuances included, to further solidify their respective sects to make them look like they were more capable Marxists than the actual 4th international, which they clearly weren't, they just led a bunch of splits about B.S. which weakened the Trotskyist movement. I'm fairly new to the leftist scene but that's what it looks like to me. Cliff wasn't even involved in the 4th International so I don't know how he actually affiliates with Trotskyism other than disagreeing with the DWS theory and founding the British SWP which is VERY different from the original U.S. SWP, which was founded by Schachtman and James P. Cannon. Is it just coincidence that they were named the same things?

If Trotskyist groups are so historically vulnerable to splits - I don't see this kind of meaningless factionalism anywhere near as regularly amongst organizations of the other Marxist tendencies - at what point do you have to stop blaming the splitters and start wondering if there is something intrinsic to Trotskyist theory that produces this splitting?

[Five Year Plan]

I am not posting this to troll. Earlier in my life I passed through a state capitalist Trotskyist organization that did not embrace this concept.
So it is a novelty to me.

I am curious about the utility of this concept with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the country that Trotsky back in the 1930s originally applied it to. Why does it continue to be such a subject of interest now?

Let me guess: the ISO revolving door?

I don't know what you mean when you say it is an "object of interest." Are you referring to its political interest? That springs from how the concept distinguishes property relations from directly observable political relations, placing the first phenomenon at the root of the second.

[Os Cangaceiros]

All we have to do is take a look at the old goat's legacy and then discern what group or collection of individuals has the correct political line. Then we need those people to lead the working class (the failure of the class struggle being primarily a question of leadership, after all), then we'll have revolution. Just like a 100 years ago in Russia. Man, it's so simple, the communist movement really needs to get it's act together.

[Devrim]

Cliff wasn't even involved in the 4th International

Of course Cliff was involved in the 4th International. He was a member of the leadership of the RCP, which was the official UK section.

I think you just make things up sometimes to suit your argument.

Devrim

[Devrim]

and founding the British SWP which is VERY different from the original U.S. SWP, which was founded by Schachtman and James P. Cannon. Is it just coincidence that they were named the same things?

Yes I would say so. The left has never been particularly original with names anyway. Of course the name 'Communist Party' was taken, and 'Communist Workers Party' would be reminiscent of KAPism. However, I think at the time that they became the SWP in 1977, the term 'communist' was still reminiscent of the Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe. Besides they had been referred to for 15 years as the 'International Socialists' by that point. 'Socialist Party' was already taken, so SWP seems logical. What else could they have chosen that still had the 'socialist'. They could hardly have called themselves the 'Socialist Revolutionary Party', could they?

Of course it could all have been part of a big international conspiracy to confuse the working class, and deprive it of the revolutionary leadership of the Fourth International, and I could also be the King of Denmark.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

If Trotskyist groups are so historically vulnerable to splits - I don't see this kind of meaningless factionalism anywhere near as regularly amongst organizations of the other Marxist tendencies - at what point do you have to stop blaming the splitters and start wondering if there is something intrinsic to Trotskyist theory that produces this splitting?

Hah have you heard of the Sino Soviet split? Or the split from the Anarchists from the 1st international? Those were both larger in scope than any splits from the 4th international.

[Geiseric]

Yes I would say so. The left has never been particularly original with names anyway. Of course the name 'Communist Party' was taken, and 'Communist Workers Party' would be reminiscent of KAPism. However, I think at the time that they became the SWP in 1977, the term 'communist' was still reminiscent of the Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe. Besides they had been referred to for 15 years as the 'International Socialists' by that point. 'Socialist Party' was already taken, so SWP seems logical. What else could they have chosen that still had the 'socialist'. They could hardly have called themselves the 'Socialist Revolutionary Party', could they?

Of course it could all have been part of a big international conspiracy to confuse the working class, and deprive it of the revolutionary leadership of the Fourth International, and I could also be the King of Denmark.

Devrim

I never really claimed that. However I didn't know he was part of the 4th International.

[Geiseric]

All we have to do is take a look at the old goat's legacy and then discern what group or collection of individuals has the correct political line. Then we need those people to lead the working class (the failure of the class struggle being primarily a question of leadership, after all), then we'll have revolution. Just like a 100 years ago in Russia. Man, it's so simple, the communist movement really needs to get it's act together.

It doesn't have anything to do with individuals, but how can we move forward if we can't explain what's already happened?


First, you didn't respond to the force of my criticism. The Soviet Union's collapse is evidence for all of those theories.

Two, if you don't know anything about Cliff why are you criticizing him? His work on state capitalism is probably the best researched analysis of the Soviet Union. This book can be found here (http://marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/index.htm).

I know about the state capitalist "theory," or should I say hypothesis. it's a red herring because it doesn't really examine any actual processes that happened in the fSU during the N.E.P. and subsequent collectivization. That phrase originated with Marx in regards to Kaiser Frederik of Germany when he used state funds for armament plants so German capitalism could find new markets. Kind of like the New Deal era U.S.A.

That theory claims the fSU was the same as kaiser era Germany which is idiotic, seeing as there were no markets in the fSU, only a giant, innefficient state apparatus which knew it could be overthrown if it allowed the N.E.P. which actually is state capitalism, to continue. Which is why collective farming and the subsequent industrialization happened. You can't just call everything you don't like capitalism, there were pressures from capitalist countries on the fSU which is why they needed a state in the first place, and those pressures would be the same as those on any other capitalist country if the fSU allowed international capital to run the country, which was impossible due to the working class itself inside russia.

But they figuratively lost the war as far back as when the German revolution was crushed. Trotsky was saying simply that if they got rid of the bureaucracy then the fSU wouldn't be ended due to the Stalinists, which ended up happening.

[Fred]

The function of the theory is to provide a reason to defend, at some level, certain countries claiming to be socialist in situations where they are under threat. This is a recruiting strategy. For Trotsky the question was why one should defend the USSR against Hitler in a possible war, even though the USSR wasn't led by Trotskyists. His answer was that the possible invasion of Russia would allow a perfect opportunity for a Trotskyist coup, and that the "degenerated" worker's state needed to be defended.

It's useful to note that a large number of Trotskyists disagreed with this, and decided to take pro-Hitler positions such as opposing defence of the Soviet Union. After Stalin defeated Hitler, and the revelations about the Holocaust, it became obvious to most people that Hitler was a unique threat, and the Trotskyist movement shifted back towards being anti-Hitler in words.

This is, of course, nonsense. I'm sure if the comrade were not banned, he could cherry pick some kind of quote and twist it to "show" this. But young comrades should know that the Trotskyists were adamant in their defense of the USSR during WWII. His answer, was that the USSR had social/property forms that were historically progressive and as such, had to be defended from attack.

Only an unregenerate Stalinist would claim it was a recruiting ploy to defend the USSR. One of the largest sections of the Fourth International, the US SWP split over this very question -- it was costly in this case in terms of membership. But since Stalinism is usually characterized by extreme cynicism, and all kinds of opportunist zig zags, I guess it is pretty easy to believe that is how everyone operates.

None of the renegades from Trotskyism that split over this issue supported Nazi Germany. So that is just a lie.

While this user is a complete tool, I don't think he should be banned. Let the board take care of him by answering his ignorant remarks. In learning especially, it has some utility for some red herrings to be raised and responded to.

[Devrim]

I never really claimed that. However I didn't know he was part of the 4th International.

No, you just sort of implied it. The thing about Cliff though is different. What you said was factually untrue. Of course everyone occasionally makes mistakes, but the majority of historical things you post on contain factual inaccuracies.

Now, I don't think that you deliberately lie about these things, but maybe you could just check your facts before posting. If you don't know much about Cliff, which obviously you don't, you could quickly look at the Wiki page on him before making these sort of claims. It is all there.

It just makes you look a bit ridiculous because it is not just this, but you make similar factual errors all the time. I just commented on this one because I was at home alone and a little bored.

Devrim

[Fred]

First, you didn't respond to the force of my criticism. The Soviet Union's collapse is evidence for all of those theories.

Two, if you don't know anything about Cliff why are you criticizing him? His work on state capitalism is probably the best researched analysis of the Soviet Union. This book can be found here (http://marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/index.htm).

I know something about Cliff. And he was a hack. His writings about the USSR are weak and full of distortions of Marxist theory. His analysis of the USSR is inferior to some bourgeois historians such E.H. Carr. State capitalism is an untenable theory from a Marxist perspective. Shachtman's Bureaucratic Collectivism was at least arguable, though not correct.

I have been threatening to start a thread on State Capitalism as a theory -- I will do that soon.

[Fred]

If it means that Trotsky was right, then Max Shachtman was right about bureaucratic collectivism and Tony Cliff was right about state capitalism. Your evidence does not support your conclusion.

Bureaucratic Collectivism was wrong. The single biggest point against it is that the bureaucracies served no creative function as all classes do at some point. Also they have disappeared -- is there a bureaucratic class in Russia? No, some of the bureaucrats have become capitalists, many did not. But they no longer exist. As Trotsky predicted, they were ephemeral, at least in historical terms.

State Capitalism is/was wrong for many reasons, first of which is that it is an oxymoron.

[ChrisK]

I know about the state capitalist "theory," or should I say hypothesis. it's a red herring because it doesn't really examine any actual processes that happened in the fSU during the N.E.P. and subsequent collectivization.

It's clear that you didn't even bother to glance at Cliff's book.


That phrase originated with Marx in regards to Kaiser Frederik of Germany when he used state funds for armament plants so German capitalism could find new markets. Kind of like the New Deal era U.S.A.

That theory claims the fSU was the same as kaiser era Germany which is idiotic, seeing as there were no markets in the fSU, only a giant, innefficient state apparatus which knew it could be overthrown if it allowed the N.E.P. which actually is state capitalism, to continue. Which is why collective farming and the subsequent industrialization happened. You can't just call everything you don't like capitalism, there were pressures from capitalist countries on the fSU which is why they needed a state in the first place, and those pressures would be the same as those on any other capitalist country if the fSU allowed international capital to run the country, which was impossible due to the working class itself inside russia.

Cliff does not claim that the Soviet Union was the same as Kaiser era Germany. If you don't know what he said, why are you criticizing him?

Since a book is too much how about this:
An Interview with Tony Cliff (http://www.isreview.org/issues/01/cliff_interview.shtml)

[ChrisK]

I know something about Cliff. And he was a hack. His writings about the USSR are weak and full of distortions of Marxist theory. His analysis of the USSR is inferior to some bourgeois historians such E.H. Carr. State capitalism is an untenable theory from a Marxist perspective. Shachtman's Bureaucratic Collectivism was at least arguable, though not correct.

Its more tenable than Trotsky's theories, which result in accepting that the working class is no longer needed to emancipate themselves. Just let the Soviet Union invade and your well on your way to a workers state.


I have been threatening to start a thread on State Capitalism as a theory -- I will do that soon.

Sounds interesting.


Bureaucratic Collectivism was wrong. The single biggest point against it is that the bureaucracies served no creative function as all classes do at some point. Also they have disappeared -- is there a bureaucratic class in Russia? No, some of the bureaucrats have become capitalists, many did not. But they no longer exist. As Trotsky predicted, they were ephemeral, at least in historical terms.

State Capitalism is/was wrong for many reasons, first of which is that it is an oxymoron.

Does not answer my post. If the collapse of the Soviet Union proves Trotsky right, then it counts as evidence for Bureaucratic Collectivism and State Capitalism.

[Geiseric]

It's clear that you didn't even bother to glance at Cliff's book.



Cliff does not claim that the Soviet Union was the same as Kaiser era Germany. If you don't know what he said, why are you criticizing him?

Since a book is too much how about this:
An Interview with Tony Cliff (http://www.isreview.org/issues/01/cliff_interview.shtml)

But he's calling it state capitalism. So if we like to practice using the original definitions of words he might of wanted to call it something else. So if it was state capitalism, it wasn't much different than Nazi Germany or new deal era U.S. or really any capitalist country since they all utilize the state as a necessity of capitalism. "State capitalism" is every capitalism!

[Geiseric]

Its more tenable than Trotsky's theories, which result in accepting that the working class is no longer needed to emancipate themselves. Just let the Soviet Union invade and your well on your way to a workers state.



Sounds interesting.



Does not answer my post. If the collapse of the Soviet Union proves Trotsky right, then it counts as evidence for Bureaucratic Collectivism and State Capitalism.

What are you talking about? Those theories deviated from Trotsky, as did the people who came up with those who led splits around or after they adopted those viewpoints.

[ChrisK]

But he's calling it state capitalism. So if we like to practice using the original definitions of words he might of wanted to call it something else. So if it was state capitalism, it wasn't much different than Nazi Germany or new deal era U.S. or really any capitalist country since they all utilize the state as a necessity of capitalism. "State capitalism" is every capitalism!

You're equivocating. You can't criticize some one else's ideas by imposing different definitions on them. You have to respond to their idea.

[ChrisK]

What are you talking about? Those theories deviated from Trotsky, as did the people who came up with those who led splits around or after they adopted those viewpoints.

Here is your original post:

It means that Trotsky was right the whole time and that socialism wasn't achieved in the soviet union. It verifies perminant revolution and shows that internationalism is the only way a revolution in any country can survive.

Both of those other theories say socialism wasn't achieved in the Soviet Union. Both of those theories support permanent revolution.
Both of those theories argue for internationalism.

Therefore, your evidence supports all three theories. Understand?

[Geiseric]

You're equivocating. You can't criticize some one else's ideas by imposing different definitions on them. You have to respond to their idea.

I know what their idea is, that wage labor and commodity production continued in the fSU, however that is wrong since the definition of a commodity is something made to be sold in a free market. The fSU neither had a free market, since the state had the monopoly on trade, nor did money really have any value as it was, since there was central planning on how much to make and distribute. The law of value didn't apply to the fSU since the state owned everything and had to do certain things like eliminate unemployment as a result of the original gains of the revolution, which weren't done away with until the restoration in the 1990s.

[ChrisK]

I know what their idea is, that wage labor and commodity production continued in the fSU, however that is wrong since the definition of a commodity is something made to be sold in a free market. The fSU neither had a free market, since the state had the monopoly on trade, nor did money really have any value as it was, since there was central planning on how much to make and distribute. The law of value didn't apply to the fSU since the state owned everything and had to do certain things like eliminate unemployment as a result of the original gains of the revolution, which weren't done away with until the restoration in the 1990s.

Finally you start to engage with ideas.

While you take free markets to be basic to capitalism, I follow Engels and take class relations to be basic.


But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head.
Source (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm)

As Engels notes here, a state monopoly on the means of production does not make it any less capitalist. We still have wage workers who are still exploited and the labor theory of value still holds.

Also, I think that your definition of a commodity is too limiting.


A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another.
Source (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S1)

By limiting commodities to being traded on a free market, you limit Marx's analysis of production.

[Thirsty Crow]

since the definition of a commodity is something made to be sold in a free market
Of course there's nothing in Marx that would indicate that a free market (whatever that is) would be condition of commodity production. The act of buying and selling can happen under very different conditions.

[Devrim]

What are you talking about? Those theories deviated from Trotsky, as did the people who came up with those who led splits around or after they adopted those viewpoints.

The theory that the Russian state was state capitalist is not a deviation from Trotsky, and those who came up with it first were not splitters from Trotskyism.

The idea of state capitalism was used within the Russian party before Trotsky went into opposition.

Devrim

[Devrim]

the definition of a commodity is something made to be sold in a free market.

Could you source this definition, please particularly with regard to the free market?

Devrim

[L.A.P.]

I understood "state capitalism" to be coined by Lenin in order to describe the nature of the NEP. I'm not sure, but I thought that Lenin explicitly equivocated socialism and the dotp with a state-monopolized capitalist economy managed by the vanguard party on behalf of the working class.





Sent from my Windows Phone using Tapatalk

[Popular Front of Judea]

Okay can we circle around to my original question? Why are we passionately still discussing just what type of society the former Soviet Union was? Besides the political nerd factor, of course. :grin:

[ChrisK]

Okay can we circle around to my original question? Why are we passionately still discussing just what type of society the former Soviet Union was? Besides the political nerd factor, of course. :grin:

In my case its mostly political nerd factor. For what its worth, I think that people like Cliff saw what he was doing as fundamental in holding up the idea that only the working class can emancipate themselves. While I think that is true, I feel that it had more relevance back when the Soviet Union still existed. Honestly, now it only applies to a few countries and those ones are becoming more explicitly capitalist anyway.

[Fred]

The theory that the Russian state was state capitalist is not a deviation from Trotsky, and those who came up with it first were not splitters from Trotskyism.

The idea of state capitalism was used within the Russian party before Trotsky went into opposition.

Devrim

That is simply wrong, comrade. Trotsky fought his last major political battle against those who would label the USSR anything other than a workers' state, albeit a degenerated one. Lenin at times referred to the USSR as "state capitalist" mainly to distinguish what they were doing economically from directly building socialism -- that is the process of primitive accumulation that had historically happened under capitalism. Lenin nor any of the Bolsheviks claimed that the USSR not a workers' state. Shachtman and Cliff were absolutely renegades from Trotskyism.

Oddly enough I once had a similar discussion with my stepmother. She knew Shachtman through Al Shanker, a leader of the UFT. According to my stepmother (transmitted from Max S. himself), Shachtman had remained a Trotskyist, whereas those from whom he split (Cannon and the Majority) had split from Trotsky. However, since Trotsky was unaware of this, :grin: and wrote an entire book's worth of documents against Burnham and Shachtman, I think we have pretty good evidence. Cliff split later on, during the Korean War, when there was pressure not to support the North and the PRC against US imperialism. It was a right split under pressure from the rad/lib milieu.

[Fred]

Okay can we circle around to my original question? Why are we passionately still discussing just what type of society the former Soviet Union was? Besides the political nerd factor, of course. :grin:

Probably the same reason that revolutionaries were passionately discussing the French Revolution over a hundred years after the fact -- it is all we have to learn in the positive way of how to make a revolution. It is also the only example of one that degenerated. So it is extraordinarily important to glean whatever lessons can be learned. The politics that come out of organizations, like Cliff's, that abandon revolutionary defensism are opportunist and reformist. It is one of the many roads to oblivion for revolutionaries.

[Devrim]

The theory that the Russian state was state capitalist is not a deviation from Trotsky, and those who came up with it first were not splitters from Trotskyism.

The idea of state capitalism was used within the Russian party before Trotsky went into opposition. That is simply wrong, comrade. Trotsky fought his last major political battle against those who would label the USSR anything other than a workers' state, albeit a degenerated one. Lenin at times referred to the USSR as "state capitalist" mainly to distinguish what they were doing economically from directly building socialism -- that is the process of primitive accumulation that had historically happened under capitalism. Lenin nor any of the Bolsheviks claimed that the USSR not a workers' state. Shachtman and Cliff were absolutely renegades from Trotskyism.

It is you who is wrong, Fred. The idea that Russia was heading towards 'state capitalism' was first raised within the Russia party in early 1918. A theses published in a Petrograd party newspaper talked of the dangers of 'state capitalism':


In the event of a rejection of active proletarian politics, the conquests of the workers' and peasants' revolution will start to coagulate into a system of state capitalism and petty bourgeois economic relations. 'The defence of the socialist fatherland' will then prove in actual fact to be defence of a petty bourgeois motherland subject to the influence of international capital.
...
In place of a transition from partial nationalisations to general socialisation of big industry, agreements with 'captains of industry' must lead to the formation of large trusts led by them and embracing the basic branches of industry, which may with external help take the form of state enterprises. Such a system of organisation of production gives a social base for evolution in the direction of state capitalism and is a transitional stage in it.

This theses was signed by Bukharin, Osinsky (Obolensky), Radek, Bubnov, Kosior, Kollontai, Kuibyshev, Pokrovsky, Preobrazhensky, Pyatakov, Sapronov, Safarov, Uritsky, Kritsman, Smirnov, Unshlikht, Yaroslavsky, Inessa Arrnand, Bela Kun, and Skvortsov-Stepanov (note that there are four Central Committee members there as well as people who went on to become prominent Trotskyists.

There was an intense debate within the party around the subject and by May Lenin had joined in with his pamphlet 'Left-Wing Childishness and the Petite-Bourgeois Mentality'.

The idea was developed within the Russian party, but also internationally by communists in other countries. By the time Trotsky went into opposition, there were many communists not only in Russia, but also in other European parties who had advocated the idea that Russia was state capitalist.

It is not at all an idea original to Trotskyists splitters following World War Two.

Devrim

[Brotto Rühle]

What features of capitalism didn't exist in the USSR?

My theory of state capitalism doesn't come from Cliff, so if you want to start a thread, by all means. Just don't pretend that everyone will come from a Cliffite perspective. Cliffs analysis lacks quite a bit.

[synthesis]

Hah have you heard of the Sino Soviet split? Or the split from the Anarchists from the 1st international? Those were both larger in scope than any splits from the 4th international.

The fact that Trotskyist splits are so much smaller in scope - and not based in any way on a complete difference of ideology or interimperialist maneuvering - is kind of the point.

[Fred]

It is you who is wrong, Fred. The idea that Russia was heading towards 'state capitalism' was first raised within the Russia party in early 1918. A theses published in a Petrograd party newspaper talked of the dangers of 'state capitalism':



This theses was signed by Bukharin, Osinsky (Obolensky), Radek, Bubnov, Kosior, Kollontai, Kuibyshev, Pokrovsky, Preobrazhensky, Pyatakov, Sapronov, Safarov, Uritsky, Kritsman, Smirnov, Unshlikht, Yaroslavsky, Inessa Arrnand, Bela Kun, and Skvortsov-Stepanov (note that there are four Central Committee members there as well as people who went on to become prominent Trotskyists.

There was an intense debate within the party around the subject and by May Lenin had joined in with his pamphlet 'Left-Wing Childishness and the Petite-Bourgeois Mentality'.

The idea was developed within the Russian party, but also internationally by communists in other countries. By the time Trotsky went into opposition, there were many communists not only in Russia, but also in other European parties who had advocated the idea that Russia was state capitalist.

It is not at all an idea original to Trotskyists splitters following World War Two.

Devrim
You are correct that these ideas bounced around within the Bolshevik Party. And Lenin answered them very well in Left-Wing Infantilism. This was not the majority position in the party and was not Lenin's.

I would also argue that in some ways Cliff and his progeny ARE connected with these folks politically. They would have been a lot more comfortable with Bukharin and Tosmky than the LO in the mid-twenties. When the LO was pushing for a faster pace of industrialization, which in the short-term meant harsher conditions for workers.

[Devrim]

You are correct that these ideas bounced around within the Bolshevik Party. And Lenin answered them very well in Left-Wing Infantilism. This was not the majority position in the party and was not Lenin's.

But then I didn't claim that they were the majority position in the party (though they did incidentally at one point have a majority in the Moscow, Petrograd and Urals regions), or that they were the positions of Lenin. What I said was that the idea of state capitalism emerged within the Russian party before Trotsky began his opposition and not within the Trotskyist movement, which you said was untrue, and is demonstrably in fact true.


I would also argue that in some ways Cliff and his progeny ARE connected with these folks politically. They would have been a lot more comfortable with Bukharin and Tosmky than the LO in the mid-twenties. When the LO was pushing for a faster pace of industrialization, which in the short-term meant harsher conditions for workers.

I think that this demonstrates your lack of knowledge about the subject. The positions held by Bukharin and Tomsky in the mid-twenties, are not the positions held by Bukharin and the left of the party in 1918-19, so the fact that they would have been comfortable with those positions does not connect the Cliff current to the positions of those who came up with the idea that the Soviet state was becoming and eventually became state capitalist.

Devrim

[Fred]

But then I didn't claim that they were the majority position in the party (though they did incidentally at one point have a majority in the Moscow, Petrograd and Urals regions), or that they were the positions of Lenin. What I said was that the idea of state capitalism emerged within the Russian party before Trotsky began his opposition and not within the Trotskyist movement, which you said was untrue, and is demonstrably in fact true.



I think that this demonstrates your lack of knowledge about the subject. The positions held by Bukharin and Tomsky in the mid-twenties, are not the positions held by Bukharin and the left of the party in 1918-19, so the fact that they would have been comfortable with those positions does not connect the Cliff current to the positions of those who came up with the idea that the Soviet state was becoming and eventually became state capitalist.

Devrim
Ah, I misunderstood your early comment that the state cap view was not a deviation from Trotskyism. I thought you meant it was Trotsky's position. I understand now that you were saying was this position did not originate with renegades from Trotskyism and, in fact, predates even the formation of the LO. Okay, some members of the Bolshevik Party were bringing it up earlier. I already agreed with you on that. I don't think their ideas were as elaborated as Cliff. Also, none of them suggested that the USSR was led by any stripe of Bourgeoisie. They were, as I understand it, talking about the risks entailed of the USSR's trajectory at that point.

As for Bukharin, yes comrade, I am well aware of his shift from the left-wing to the right-wing of the Party. It happens that I believe there is more than a whiff of syndicalism in Cliff's positions and that would actually line up with "both" Bukharins.

[argeiphontes]

Just to reference the OP again and summarize my thinking on the subject, if anything, this thread shows how completely irrelevant the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc are to today's struggle. The conditions in Russia were specific to that time and place. The actions taken and the theories justifying them were developed on the fly and were products of their own times. Justification, desperation, and ambition could have been other motives.

The example shows that if you don't overturn the social relations of capitalism and create self-management and democracy, you'll be left with nothing. The society will be antagonistic to the government and the revolution, and will have to be held together by force. More and more dissatisfied and cynical people will be branded counterrevolutionary to justify their coercion by force, and then when that force disappears for whatever reason, it'll be 1989 all over again. And the only model for moving forward from state capitalism or state socialism or whatever you'd like to call it, will be full-on American capitalism, because no real alternative was created. Nobody wants a society that's objectively worse than capitalism, and they know it when they have it.

It doesn't prove, but is a strong hint, that the whole Marxist-Leninist/Trotskyist set of ideas for what creates transition to communism are wrong, or don't work in practice. Agitating for a Bolshevik-like revolution and subsequent state capitalism (or whatever you wish to call that system) isn't going to create communism, and the fact that people don't want it might just reflect their good instincts because there's good reason to be suspicious.

It's a model for what not to do. The technical details of particular aspects of it don't change the overall message.

[Devrim]

Also, none of them suggested that the USSR was led by any stripe of Bourgeoisie. They were, as I understand it, talking about the risks entailed of the USSR's trajectory at that point.

In 1918, yes, but even before Trotsky's opposition began there were currents within the party which had charecterised the Soviet state as capitalist.

Devrim

[Thirsty Crow]

Just to reference the OP again and summarize my thinking on the subject, if anything, this thread shows how completely irrelevant the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc are to today's struggle...
...
It's a model for what not to do.
You do realize that there is a contradiction here?

[argeiphontes]

I do now. ;) Let's say that laboring over the details of what happened is irrelevant because the system was fundamentally flawed, and hence a model of what not to do. It's a model of what not to do because it was fundamentally wrong, not because of some detail about Trotsky vs. Lenin or whatever.

It's just a vague polemic. :)

edit: Even if the Soviet Union wasn't capitalist, I still wouldn't want it.

[Geiseric]

I do now. ;) Let's say that laboring over the details of what happened is irrelevant because the system was fundamentally flawed, and hence a model of what not to do. It's a model of what not to do because it was fundamentally wrong, not because of some detail about Trotsky vs. Lenin or whatever.

It's just a vague polemic. :)

edit: Even if the Soviet Union wasn't capitalist, I still wouldn't want it.

What a petit position to have. Do you know that the country was already ravaged by a world war, as well as the civil war? Don't you think that had ANYTHING to do with how messed up the fSU was? Besides if you don't recognize the Russian Revolution for what it was, you'd of been historically as wrong as Kautsky.

[argeiphontes]

^
pWdd6_ZxX8c

;)

I don't know every single detail of the Russian revolution. I do know it strangled itself though.
If somebody wanted to make a statement about how that revolution is relevant for today, they would say something like, "The condition of the working class today is similar to pre-revolution Russia", and then defend their thesis. I didn't see a lot of that in the thread, because the Soviet Union is irrelevant. :ohmy:

edit: Kautsky died in 1938.