"Degenerated Workers' State"

[flouPOWER]

I have not yet fully understood this term. Could somebody explain? Does it mean, a socialist state where there hasn't been a DOTP? (Dictatorship of the proletariat)

[Troublesome Gnat]

From my understanding a degenerated workers state occurs when the working class or I should say a political party overthrows a capitalist state and while establishing a workers state is then unable to fulfil workers democracy. In fact what you would expect to find in a capitalist democracy such as free speech, secret ballots etc are unable to develop which leads to a degeneration in the workers state. This can be seen in Russia following the rise to power of Stalin with his resulting tyranny.

As far as I can see the term DWP doesn't tell us anything about the dynamics of a society. For me the revolution in Russia was defeated in 1921 and by 1928 capitalism was once again established with all the resulting horrors associated with rapid accumulation of surplus value.

[Comrade #138672]

I believe that the Wikipedia article on it describes this pretty well:


Trotsky held that in Russia between the 1917 October Revolution and up to Joseph Stalin's consolidation of power, there was a genuine workers' state. The bourgeoisie had been politically overthrown by the working class and the economic basis of that state lay in collective ownership of the means of production. Contrary to the predictions of many socialists such as Lenin, the revolution failed to spread to Germany and other industrial Western European countries (although there were massive upheavals of working people in some of these countries), and consequently the Soviet state began to degenerate. This was worsened by the material and political degeneration of the Russian working class by the Civil War of 1917–1923.

After the death of Lenin in 1924, the ruling stratum of the Soviet Union, consolidated around Stalin, was held to be a bureaucratic caste, and not a new ruling class, because its political control did not also extend to economic ownership. The theory that the Soviet Union was a degenerated workers' state is closely connected to Trotsky's call for a political revolution in the USSR, as well as Trotsky's call for defense of the USSR against capitalist restoration.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerated_workers%27_state

[socialistlawyer]

Nadya, Stalin's wife, committed suicide because of the freedoms granted to her classmates to gossip on her, sow intrigues and put her in a quagmire of moral hopelessness because of the alleged crimes imputed on her husband. Nadya was not a woman of loose morals unlike her malicious classmates. Stalin did not get back at her evil and conspiratorial classmates. It's do or die for Josef Stalin. Without imposing an iron hand, the cabal to assassinate him should had been possible. Nonetheless, I believe the Soviets love Josef Stalin for who can walk the streets of Moscow without even one or two bodyguards but only him. (Attempts on Hitler were made). We should thank Stalin for making socialism a reality to half of the world's population. Long live Koba!

[Creative Destruction]

I can't tell if you're a troll or just genuinely dumb.

[Comrade #138672]

I can't tell if you're a troll or just genuinely dumb.He posted similar shit in another thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2811243&postcount=13

[socialistlawyer]

I am a convinced communist posting in this forum in good faith. I do not swear nor elicit racial nor sexist slurs.

[Comrade #138672]

I am a convinced communist posting in this forum in good faith.Faith? To be well-intentioned is good, but communists should base themselves on science and Marxism.


I do not swear nor elicit racial nor sexist slurs.Good. Although I do not care about swearing per se.

[Creative Destruction]

I am a convinced communist posting in this forum in good faith. I do not swear nor elicit racial nor sexist slurs.

You have a long way to go, because you're in the toilet, theoretically. Stalin didn't make socialism a reality. He put a hurdle between us and socialism.

[motion denied]

I'm not the best person when it comes to the science of Bolshevism-Leninism (;)) , be warned.

After a certain country had undergone a proletarian revolution and, in the case of the USSR, the proletariat had its power usurped by the bureaucracy, which used the hard social conditions in its favour; that is, what was at first a workers' state, degenerated. However, iirc, it would also include state monopoly on foreign trade and overall planning.

Looking forward to anyone correcting probable misconceptions.

[Atsumari]

I'm not the best person when it comes to the science of Bolshevism-Leninism (;)) , be warned.

After a certain country had undergone a proletarian revolution and, in the case of the USSR, the proletariat had its power usurped by the bureaucracy, which used the hard social conditions in its favour; that is, what was at first a workers' state, degenerated. However, iirc, it would also include state monopoly on foreign trade and overall planning.

Looking forward to anyone correcting probable misconceptions.
Ten Trots will give you ten different responses.

[flouPOWER]

Ten Trots will give you ten different responses.

Lol. I'm a trotskyist and I didnt know what degenerated workers' state was until know :P

[Sewer Socialist]

So, the degenerated / deformed part I understand, but is a workers' state synonymous with the dictatorship of the proletariat? Assuming so, why is there a different (but nearly the same) term?

[RedKobra]

I could be wrong but I assumed that a Degenerated Workers State alludes to the fact that the state was at some previous point in time a genuine workers state. Where as a Deformed Workers State seems to imply that has always been this way and never was a genuine workers state.

Quite frankly none of the explanations I've come across to explain the Soviet Union seem entirely adequate. I don't accept the Soviet Union under Bolshevik rule ever was a DoTP. Not in strictly Marxist terms. The Bolsheviks were consolidating power from the point they took power to the end of the civil war. At no point did the people have the ability to remove Lenin or the Bolsheviks, which is the only true test of the DoTP. If you can't at least in theory remove your leaders then in no sense are you in a position of power, let alone a dictatorship.

The Deformed Workers State description doesn't explain enough about the very real changes in the relationships between the different classes. What does it tell us about the working class' relationship to the means of production. The Extraction of Surplus Value.etc It seems an entirely inadequate description.

As for State Capitalism...There is no way a state as inefficient and bureaucratised as the Soviet Union could be considered Capitalist. It was a planned economy that wasn't producing junk to export. It was an almost Keynyesian economy based on the constant building and rebuilding of factories and apartment blocks. The idea being that as long as the workers were working and work was getting done it didn't actually matter that no genuine wealth was being created. THIS IS NOT CAPITALISM. Plus non of the actual economic apparatus was available for purchase. If you can't buy the means of production, in what sense is it meaningful to call the economy Capitalist?

So, as I say, I am still waiting to hear a coherent description of the Soviet Union.

[Tim Cornelis]

Have you actually looked for coherent descriptions of the Soviet Union or are you waiting for them to be delivered to you?

Inefficiency or efficiency is not a defining feature of capitalism. Not that the USSR economy was inefficient by many standards. Allocative efficiency was on par with that of the US. It was mainly in implementing innovations that it lacked causing it into crisis. And 'almost Keynesianism' isn't capitalistic?

"The idea being that as long as the workers were working and work was getting done it didn't actually matter that no genuine wealth was being created. THIS IS NOT CAPITALISM." I'm not sure what this means. Is it capitalism to care exactly how workers produce wealth (create surplus value I suppose) as opposed to not caring as long as surplus value is created (non-capitalism?). That doesn't seem coherent to me.

And means of production were bought and sold between enterprises, first at subsidised prices until 1953. Inputs and outputs were commodities exchanged on the market So generalised commodity production did exist in the USSR.

[Ravn]

I I don't accept the Soviet Union under Bolshevik rule ever was a DoTP.

It was if working class interests were predominate. Dismissing it all because it involved a bureaucracy is groundless.

[Comrade #138672]

So, the degenerated / deformed part I understand, but is a workers' state synonymous with the dictatorship of the proletariat? Assuming so, why is there a different (but nearly the same) term?I consider them to be synonymous. A dictatorship of the proletariat is a workers' state, since the state cannot wither away right away, and the proletariat needs some way to exercise power. Why there is a different term to convey the same thing, I do not know. But the same thing can be said about socialism vs. communism.

[Tim Cornelis]

It was if working class interests were predominate. Dismissing it all because it involved a bureaucracy is groundless.

The Leninist argument is that a workers' state is not (necessarily) defined as working class rule but as rule in the interests of the working class. Somehow the former is 'formal logic' and the latter 'dialectics'. Somewhat ironic since it in itself constitutes a revision in Marxism. A social revolution is initiated as a result of a supersession in the social relations of production. Leninists have inverted the materialist method and consider radical change in the superstructure sufficient to characterise this and that as revolutionary. We end up with absurdities from the perspective of Marxism, e.g. contemporary China as workers' state or the Eastern bloc having 'socialism' imposed by the Red Army. In 1917 Russia there was a movement toward the supersession of the relations of production, transforming wage-labour into associated labour through workers' councils. Under Bolshevik rule wage-labour was reinforced under one-man management (subjected to the will of soviets which were later stripped of their sovereignty), and therefore this was objectively a counter-revolutionary act. In the Leninist narrative the enterprises under one-man management were subject to the organs of the workers' state, but from the perspective of Marxism this would mean that the superstructure precedes the base -- an inversion of the materialist method. There can be no social revolution in the Marxist sense without preceding uprooting and change of the social relations of production. Thus, the Bolsheviks enacted a counter-revolution.

slavery (base), a slave-state (superstructure) emerged from it; feudal relations (base), a feudal state emerged from it (superstructure); wage-labour, a capitalist emerged from it (superstructure); first a workers' state (superstructure) then either relations of production are never subjected to change only perhaps methods of production or extraction or employment (base) or the superstructure forces change in the relations of production at some point (base). From a Marxist perspective this is absurd, yet Stalinists (and to a lesser extend Trotskyists) uphold this.

[RedWorker]

slavery (base), a slave-state (superstructure) emerged from it; feudal relations (base), a feudal state emerged from it (superstructure); wage-labour, a capitalist emerged from it (superstructure); first a workers' state (superstructure) then either relations of production are never subjected to change only perhaps methods of production or extraction or employment (base) or the superstructure forces change in the relations of production at some point (base). From a Marxist perspective this is absurd, yet Stalinists (and to a lesser extend Trotskyists) uphold this.

While I agree with the general idea behind your post, it seems to make simplifications. It is the workers' state which enables the change to the communist mode of production, and not the opposite. The means of production are put under the control of the workers' state... is this not a change in the base?

[Tim Cornelis]

That argument simply falls because it can't be a workers' state in the first place. It isn't in a reconstruction period where the social relations of capitalism (wage-labour) are in the process of being replaced by those of socialism (associated labour) and therefore the superstructure that arises out of wage-labour can't be a workers' state.

[RedWorker]

Then what is the revolution and how is it made? How can there be a change in the base without putting the means of production under control of the workers' state?

[Tim Cornelis]

Then what is the revolution and how is it made? How can there be a change in the base without putting the means of production under control of the workers' state?

I don't see how those preclude each other. The Marxist proposition is simply that the workers' state, being a state, arises out of the base, and not vice versa. Thus, concretely, this would mean that workers start seizing workplaces, seizing means of production, and forming councils and committees to administer them. This is the beginning of the transformation of the relations of production into freely associated labour. Recognising the need to for independent political power to safeguard their gains (being that it's generally illegal to seize workplaces) they authorise territory-based workers' councils (ideally). Thus, the workers' state originates from the transforming relations of production. Base > Superstructure

[RedKobra]

Doesn't that contradict the Marxist dictum of revolution from below, doesn't Marx rail against "enlightened" revolutionaries leading the workers by the nose? How can we square the absence of workers control with the necessity of revolution from below.

[Tim Cornelis]

^Who were you addressing?

If it's me I think you misinterpreted what I wrote.

[RedWorker]

I don't see how those preclude each other. The Marxist proposition is simply that the workers' state, being a state, arises out of the base, and not vice versa. Thus, concretely, this would mean that workers start seizing workplaces, seizing means of production, and forming councils and committees to administer them. This is the beginning of the transformation of the relations of production into freely associated labour. Recognising the need to for independent political power to safeguard their gains (being that it's generally illegal to seize workplaces) they authorise territory-based workers' councils (ideally). Thus, the workers' state originates from the transforming relations of production. Base > Superstructure

But Marx and Engels talked about the proletariat taking control of the state and then putting means of production under its control, e.g. Principles of Communism, Communist Manifesto, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, etc.

[Tim Cornelis]

But Marx and Engels talked about the proletariat taking control of the state and then putting means of production under its control, e.g. Principles of Communism, Communist Manifesto, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, etc.

I'm not sure if they wrote what you read. They did write something similar to an extend in the Communist Manifesto and the Principles of Communism, but they later revised their position when witnessing the Paris Commune. Later Marx wrote that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes" contradicts the notion of 'taking control of the state' as more or less advocated in earlier writings. Nevertheless, even in his earlier writings he gives precedence to the proletariat wresting 'all capital from the bourgeoisie'.

I don't think such quotes exist in 'Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'. Certainly, the means of production are nationalised, but I don't see how this contradicts what I said. Legal property relations arise from the social relations of production, not vice versa.

[RedWorker]

So Marx and Engels were the original instigators of Leninist distortion? How do we conceptualize this in a Marxist framework? What is canon, and what isn't canon?


Nevertheless, even in his earlier writings he gives precedence to the proletariat wresting 'all capital from the bourgeoisie'.

By putting it under control of the workers' state.

[Tim Cornelis]

So Marx and Engels were the original instigators of Leninist distortion? How do we conceptualize this in a Marxist framework? What is canon, and what isn't canon?



By putting it under control of the workers' state.

I don't understand the contradiction you are seeing here, in my eyes there's none. You seem to think I ascribe no role to a workers' state. Yes, the means of production are put under control of the workers' state. But where does that contradict what I said? The workers' state arises out of the social relations of production that are in the process of being transformed. Workplaces enter into the control of the workers which form economic and political organs vertically and integrate these. The economic ones subservient to the political ones, the lower ones to the higher ones.

The Leninist distortion lies in that the workers' state exists without originating from a reconstituting of the social relations of production. A workers' state emerges in spite of its reproducing of capitalist relations of production, wage-labour. I don't see any such thing in classical Marxism. The issue is not the control by the workers' state.

[Comrade #138672]

I don't see how those preclude each other. The Marxist proposition is simply that the workers' state, being a state, arises out of the base, and not vice versa. Thus, concretely, this would mean that workers start seizing workplaces, seizing means of production, and forming councils and committees to administer them. This is the beginning of the transformation of the relations of production into freely associated labour. Recognising the need to for independent political power to safeguard their gains (being that it's generally illegal to seize workplaces) they authorise territory-based workers' councils (ideally). Thus, the workers' state originates from the transforming relations of production. Base > SuperstructureBut is this not a form of Economism?

[RedWorker]

I don't understand the contradiction you are seeing here, in my eyes there's none. You seem to think I ascribe no role to a workers' state. Yes, the means of production are put under control of the workers' state. But where does that contradict what I said? The workers' state arises out of the social relations of production that are in the process of being transformed. Workplaces enter into the control of the workers which form economic and political organs vertically and integrate these. The economic ones subservient to the political ones, the lower ones to the higher ones.

But Marx and Engels, in these early writings, talk about the take-over of the state, and then (nationalizing?) means of production under this state. It is not even very clear whether this is done within the context of the bourgeois state or the proletarian state (if such a concept even existed back then), though they say "measures to be taken when the proletariat takes over the state", which could mean many things.

So Marx and Engels were the original instigators of Leninist distortion? How do we conceptualize this in a Marxist framework? What is canon, and what isn't canon?

To be clear, I'm asking this genuinely. Marx and Engels may very well have been wrong when they said that.

[Destroyer of Illusions]

I have not yet fully understood this term.

No wonder since this term is a sheer rubbish.State is class instrument and it cannot be "degenerated state" as it cannot be degenerated class.The one who wants to disprove it should show an example of degenerated feudal and bourgeois states.

[Creative Destruction]

It is not even very clear whether this is done within the context of the bourgeois state or the proletarian state (if such a concept even existed back then), though they say "measures to be taken when the proletariat takes over the state", which could mean many things.

They're talking about seizing state power. It does not happen within the bourgeois state, as in workers are elected to congress or parliament and begin administering it through bourgeois institutions. They do make distinctions between the bourgeois state and the worker's state. I mean, this is pretty clear if we're to take the Paris Commune, as they did, as an example of the proletarian dictatorship. The Paris Commune didn't seize power through capturing and administering Versailles, which was the center of the French bourgeois state. They took over Parisian government offices and administered them in an entirely different way, though -- and not within the constraints of a bourgeois state.

[RedWorker]

They're talking about seizing state power. It does not happen within the bourgeois state, as in workers are elected to congress or parliament and begin administering it through bourgeois institutions. They do make distinctions between the bourgeois state and the worker's state. I mean, this is pretty clear if we're to take the Paris Commune, as they did, as an example of the proletarian dictatorship. The Paris Commune didn't seize power through capturing and administering Versailles, which was the center of the French bourgeois state. They took over Parisian government offices and administered them in an entirely different way, though -- and not within the constraints of a bourgeois state.

Yet the very point here is that we're talking about earlier writings of Marx & Engels where they did not get fully finish ironing out concepts such as the workers' state and the Paris Commune had not existed.

[Tim Cornelis]

But is this not a form of Economism?

No. ("The economic ones subservient to the political ones, the lower ones to the higher ones.")


But Marx and Engels, in these early writings, talk about the take-over of the state, and then (nationalizing?) means of production under this state. It is not even very clear whether this is done within the context of the bourgeois state or the proletarian state (if such a concept even existed back then), though they say "measures to be taken when the proletariat takes over the state", which could mean many things.

So Marx and Engels were the original instigators of Leninist distortion? How do we conceptualize this in a Marxist framework? What is canon, and what isn't canon?

To be clear, I'm asking this genuinely. Marx and Engels may very well have been wrong when they said that.

What Marx and Engels advocated was the proletariat using democracy to push through measures in its interests to force contradictions into conflict. I really can't see how this is the same as Leninism positing that a workers' state can exist under capitalist social relations.


They're talking about seizing state power. It does not happen within the bourgeois state, as in workers are elected to congress or parliament and begin administering it through bourgeois institutions. They do make distinctions between the bourgeois state and the worker's state. I mean, this is pretty clear if we're to take the Paris Commune, as they did, as an example of the proletarian dictatorship. The Paris Commune didn't seize power through capturing and administering Versailles, which was the center of the French bourgeois state. They took over Parisian government offices and administered them in an entirely different way, though -- and not within the constraints of a bourgeois state.

They talked about gaining power under a democratic republic

[Creative Destruction]

They talked about gaining power under a democratic republic

Regardless, they never talked about laying claim to the bourgeois state and administering it through its institutions, as if that were the proletarian dictatorship. "Gaining power" is not power. It's the process of taking power; i.e., challenging the current dominant power. "The state" that they were talking about, even in early writings, referred to a different kind of state -- something that is separate from the bourgeois state and challenges it. It was, as you put earlier, an independent political power. The Civil War in France wasn't so much a revision of their previous ideas about the conquest of state power, as much as it was something for Marx to point to and say "Hey, this is basically what I was saying would happen." The only revision I remember from that speech is the introduction, where they tentatively allowed that, perhaps, the transition from capitalism to communism could happen in a more or less peaceful manner in the highly advanced countries.

[gef-gons]

What constitutes a dws depends on your bias. Some might call the former S.U. a dws
in so far as while a rev did take place it was not a prol. rev because a true w/c did not exist.n Further, classical marxism would say that a nation must first go through a peroid of
capitalist liberal democracy to create the preconditions (socia/economic) i.e. surplus production and the peasant class transformed to an educated w/c.
So, these things did not exist in the S.U., therefore it was a degenerated worker's state. It could be argued differently, depending on bias - I suppose there are some nonrelative measurements for such a thing - but because a true worker's state has not occured?...
Revolution a true w/c rev needs to happen accross the world, the contrdictions between the interests of capital and the interests of the w/c mean that the rev peroid will continue until the death (utter and complete) of the capitalist m of p.
We can see now with issue like global warming how borders must cease or we will all cease.
I am growing weary and tired.