Pro-Bureaucratic State Capitalists

[RedKobra]

Are there people and or movement/sect/party/organisation who don't dispute that the USSR was State Capitalist with Bureaucratic State features and think that such a society is a good thing? Who aspire to that model?

its not necessarily important whether you or I think that the USSR was state Capitalist, I'm just using that as an example.

Not interested-interested, just curious.

[tuwix]

There are people who love the Soviet Union and this model (surely because never had to live in such model as I did and their thinking is strongly idealized by soviet propaganda), but they don't recognize that the Soviet Union and other such states were capitalist. They thin they were socialist.

[RedKobra]

There are people who love the Soviet Union and this model (surely because never had to live in such model as I did and their thinking is strongly idealized by soviet propaganda), but they don't recognize that the Soviet Union and other such states were capitalist. They thin they were socialist.

Yeh, I know there are people who think the Soviet Union was socialist. I'm curious about whether there's anyone who acknowledges that it wasn't but still thinks it was great.

[Blake's Baby]

That's sort of the position of the Cliffites, at least in practice. 'Neither Washington nor Moscow but International Socialism' was a great slogan in the 1980s, but what it meant in practice was 'tailing the USSR's foreign policy while pretending to criticise it and wanting to nationalise industry in the UK'.

It's more or less inherent in most forms of Trotskyism I think but most evident in the Britsh SWP and its offshoots.

[parallax]

I belong to an organization that recognizes that the SU became state capitalist in 1953.

[Ismail]

The Trot position, beginning with Trotsky himself, is that the USSR was a "deformed workers' state." The economic successes of the 1930s were said to have been made possible because of the fact that it was a workers' state, but that its fruits were "appropriated" by the "Stalinist bureaucracy," which at the same time was rolling back various social gains won as a result of the October Revolution.

The standard Trot line, at least in theory, was therefore that such a state had to be defended against capitalism while at the same time the "bureaucracy" had to be overthrown by the Soviet working-class. The USSR was thus neither capitalist nor socialist.

A bunch of followers of Trotsky in the 1930s and 40s dissented by claiming either that it was state-capitalist or "bureaucratic-collectivist," and held that the state had thus become thoroughly reactionary and exploited the working-class as much (if not more) than the bourgeoisie in Western countries.

After WWII the standard Trot view is that the "Stalinist bureaucracy," which couldn't actually destroy the basis of its power (the workers' state established by the October Revolution), was compelled to extend both the economic gains of the revolution as well as its own "bureaucracy" in the countries of Eastern Europe and elsewhere, which were thus designated as "deformed workers' states" (since there was nothing to degenerate into.)

Every Trot I've come across regards Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" as a good thing and denounce him for not going far enough. A number of Trots (known as Pabloites) worked closely with bourgeois nationalist groups in Algeria, Nicaragua and elsewhere. The US SWP became cheerleaders of Castro's Cuba even as they constantly damned "Stalinism" everywhere else.

So at least up to the 80s the standard Trot view was that the USSR and Co. gave an inkling of the potential economic and social development made possible by states run by the working-class, but that all this was being held down by the aforementioned "Stalinists" who were afraid of actual proletarian revolutions yet were not in a position to dismantle the states they presided over.

[Blake's Baby]

I think that was what I said Ismail.

[Sewer Socialist]

What is the position of the National Bolshevists, the modern right-wing party in Russia?

[Ismail]

I think that was what I said Ismail.Pretty sure I went into more detail. Also I'm not sure how true your claim that the Cliffites "critically supported" the Soviet revisionists and whatnot is. Granted, my info on this comes from other Trots, but they apparently took a "neutral" position on the Vietnam War and other issues.


What is the position of the National Bolshevists, the modern right-wing party in Russia?I don't think they have any coherent theories. Some members try to pay some lipservice to Marxism, most others denounce Marx for being a Jew. One of its main "theorists" (Dugin) favorably cites Julius Evola, whose main issue with fascism was that it demagogically appealed to "the people" rather than an aristocratic elite. Generally though they praise the Stalin era because MOTHER RUSSIA BECAME MIGHTY ONCE MORE and their attitude to subsequent decades is that bureaucrats and "Zionists" (Jews) screwed this up because they did not have the interest of the Russian people at heart, only "foreigners" (more Jews.)

They don't really think in terms of state-capitalism or socialism or whatever, to them the issue is whether the policies of the Soviet state served "the nation" or not.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The "Cliffist" group took a neutral position on the Korean War, for example. And of course they supported the bitterly anti-Soviet Iranian regime and the clerical reaction in Afghanistan. In other cases they supported the Soviet Union, yes, but to call them pro-USSR is a bit of a stretch I think.

Most Trotskyists claim that the USSR was a degenerated workers' state and as such needed to be defended against capitalist restoration. But we definitely don't think it was "state capitalist" anything.

Shachtman did briefly claim, bless'im, that the USSR was a "bureaucratic-collectivist" society and that "bureaucratic collectivism" was more progressive than capitalism. Given the obvious problems of adding an entire mode of production between capitalism and socialism, he abandoned the thesis fairly quickly.

[Ismail]

Shachtman did briefly claim, bless'im, that the USSR was a "bureaucratic-collectivist" society and that "bureaucratic collectivism" was more progressive than capitalism. Given the obvious problems of adding an entire mode of production between capitalism and socialism, he abandoned the thesis fairly quickly.Did he? From what I understand he stuck with it in some form in subsequent decades, with his politics moving increasingly to the right so that by the time the Vietnam War came about his followers were basically arguing for a US victory. Generally those that claim the USSR was neither a workers' state nor capitalist claim instead that the USSR was actually worse than capitalism (e.g. that it was a modern form of "Oriental despotism," for example.)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

He continued to claim that the USSR was a "bureaucratic collectivist" society, but dropped the thesis that it was progressive in comparison to capitalism, moving closer to Burnham and Abern. The "left Shachtmanists" (Draper for example) would later claim that "bureaucratic collectivism" is as progressive as capitalism; Shachtman himself would conclude that it is reactionary compared to capitalism, as did the majority of the "Third Camp" grouping, by then called the ISL if I'm not mistaken, and later the remnants of the SPA that Shachtman's group had fused with.

[Blake's Baby]

Pretty sure I went into more detail...

Yes, you certainly added more detail, I'll not deny that.


... Also I'm not sure how true your claim that the Cliffites "critically supported" the Soviet revisionists and whatnot is. Granted, my info on this comes from other Trots, but they apparently took a "neutral" position on the Vietnam War and other issues...

I don't think this is accurate. My understanding is that they took an internationalist position ('neutral', haha, taking the position of the working class means you are 'neutral') in the war in Korea, but true to their murky roots in Trotskyism, they were supporting the USSR by the time of Vietnam.

Though as 870 says, they were supportive of the Iranian regime. Very critical of Saddam Hussein in the 1980s ('hangman of the West' I think he was described as if I remember correctly) though given subsequent developments it's not considered good form to mention this.

[Ismail]

Though as 870 says, they were supportive of the Iranian regime. Very critical of Saddam Hussein in the 1980s ('hangman of the West' I think he was described as if I remember correctly) though given subsequent developments it's not considered good form to mention this.As Hoxha noted: "Who are those who want to prolong [the Iran-Iraq] war endlessly? They are the Soviet social-imperialists, the main suppliers of Iraq with all types of the most modern weapons; they are the American imperialists who, by means of Iraq, want to carry out the counter-revolution in Iran, to overthrow the present regime and re-install the barbarous Pahlavi regime, to regain control of the great oil wealth of Iran and the fabulous privileges which they enjoyed only a few years ago; they are the arms monopolies of certain other imperialist countries, such as France, Britain, etc. which sell Iraq supersonic aircraft, missiles and chemical weapons; they are the Israelis who want the Arabs to chop each other to pieces. Finally the Arab reactionaries, who are scared to death of the revolutionary spirit and progressive movements of the Palestinian people, the Iranian people and any other people in this region, also want to keep it going." (Reflections on the Middle East, pp. 532-533.)

So the Cliffites supporting the Iranian Revolution the way they did would actually be a halfway decent position.

In Korea the southern half was ruled by a neo-colonial regime that carried out border provocations in the hopes of igniting a war. When the DPRK's troops entered the south and carried out land and other reforms of a democratic character they were welcomed by the population. In fact this was a big reason why after the war the USA insisted on "land reform" in South Korea and Taiwan, since they were afraid of the effective slogan the communists had in those areas against the landowners. Calling for the US and its allies to leave Korea was an internationalist stand, if that was the position of the Cliffites then you would be correct.

[Blake's Baby]

No, the Iranian 'revolution' was still shit Ismail. But fair go for trying despreately to find the 'lesser evil' bourgeois position there, it's what you're for after all. As long as you don't support the working class - never that.

[Ismail]

No, the Iranian 'revolution' was still shit Ismail. But fair go for trying despreately to find the 'lesser evil' bourgeois position there, it's what you're for after all. As long as you don't support the working class - never that.Except it was precisely the working-class which made up the vast majority of those calling for the downfall of the Shah and the "reformist" elements (like Bakhtiar) connected to Western imperialism in 1978-80. It was Saddam and his "revolutionary-democratic" (to the Soviet revisionists) regime which tried to undo the gains of the revolution with the backing of the USA and USSR.

To quote Hoxha again, "The working class and its true Marxist-Leninist vanguard should have no illusions about the 'deep-going' bourgeois-democratic measures and reforms which the Shia clergy or the anti-Shah elements of the old and new national bourgeoisie might carry out. Certainly, if the working class, the poor peasantry and the progressive students, whether believers or non-believers, allow the impetus of the revolution to ebb away, which means that they do not proceed with determination and maturity towards alliances and activities conducive to successive political and socio-economic reforms, then the revolution will stop half-way, the masses will be disillusioned and the exploitation of them will continue in other forms by pseudo-democratic people linked in new alliances with the different imperialists." (Ibid. p. 381.)

[Tim Cornelis]

Except it was precisely the working-class which made up the vast majority of those calling for the downfall of the Shah and the "reformist" elements (like Bakhtiar) connected to Western imperialism in 1978-80. It was Saddam and his "revolutionary-democratic" (to the Soviet revisionists) regime which tried to undo the gains of the revolution with the backing of the USA and USSR.

To quote Devrim: "What is undoubtedly true is that many of the people who make up these sorts of movements come from the working class. That is unsurprising though. The majority of urban dwellers in these countries are working class, and no effective political movement, be it communist, fascist, religious, or nationalist, can exist if it doesn't get support from the working class. Certainly the composition of the pro-government rallies organised by Tayyip Erdoğan's AKP has also been working class, indeed one could even make an argument that they were even more so.

The question that needs to be asked before even trying to determine the class nature of these movements is what determines the class nature of a movement in general. The sociological composition of a movement alone is not enough to judge its nature. Workers can be mobilised behind completely reactionary movements, nor are the methods of the working class sufficient to make a judgement, as is shown by the Powell strikes in the UK in the 60s and the Ulster Workers' Council in 1974. Equally important are the aims, demands, and direction of a movement. In making this sort of judgement on a movement all of these factors need to be taken into consideration."

[Blake's Baby]

Thanks Tim. And Devrim.

Yes indeed. And what's also important is that just because large numbers of workers were calling for the downfall of the Shah - an indeed, revolting against the government - that doesn't mean that teh clerical reaction that seized control of the country was what the working class was trying to do either. Hoxha's prediction that 'the masses will be disillusioned' (presumably with the hagiarchy, it's a bit unclear) and the Iranian bourgeoisie would rule by 'pseudo-democratic methods' linked to different imperialists proved wide of the mark. Iran was distinctly not integrated into the system of imperialist alliances, and the rule of the Ayatollahs has continued - indeed, it's been very hard for a faction to emerge that is 'pseudo-democratic' or linked to 'different imperialists'.

[Ismail]

To quote Devrim: "What is undoubtedly true is that many of the people who make up these sorts of movements come from the working class. That is unsurprising though. The majority of urban dwellers in these countries are working class, and no effective political movement, be it communist, fascist, religious, or nationalist, can exist if it doesn't get support from the working class. Certainly the composition of the pro-government rallies organised by Tayyip Erdoğan's AKP has also been working class, indeed one could even make an argument that they were even more so.

The question that needs to be asked before even trying to determine the class nature of these movements is what determines the class nature of a movement in general. The sociological composition of a movement alone is not enough to judge its nature. Workers can be mobilised behind completely reactionary movements, nor are the methods of the working class sufficient to make a judgement, as is shown by the Powell strikes in the UK in the 60s and the Ulster Workers' Council in 1974. Equally important are the aims, demands, and direction of a movement. In making this sort of judgement on a movement all of these factors need to be taken into consideration."Except no one was arguing that the Iranian Revolution was at once a proletarian revolution. It could have gone over into a proletarian revolution if led by the proletariat, just as the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia went over into a proletarian one in the course of 1917, but it didn't and instead the Ayatollah filled the gap with his appeals against American imperialism and "godless communism" represented by the Soviet social-imperialists.

It's also pretty silly to give a quote talking about working-class persons partaking in rallies to back a bourgeois political party in Turkey and to compare it to the masses of workers and students rising in strikes and protests to call for the downfall of a reactionary regime and all it stood for.


And what's also important is that just because large numbers of workers were calling for the downfall of the Shah - an indeed, revolting against the government - that doesn't mean that teh clerical reaction that seized control of the country was what the working class was trying to do either.Obviously, otherwise Hoxha wouldn't have written what I shall now quote you quoting:


Hoxha's prediction that 'the masses will be disillusioned' (presumably with the hagiarchy, it's a bit unclear)He wrote it in January 1980 and specifically mentioned the "Shia clergy or the anti-Shah elements of the old and new national bourgeoisie."


and the Iranian bourgeoisie would rule by 'pseudo-democratic methods' linked to different imperialists proved wide of the mark. Iran was distinctly not integrated into the system of imperialist alliances, and the rule of the Ayatollahs has continued - indeed, it's been very hard for a faction to emerge that is 'pseudo-democratic' or linked to 'different imperialists'.Iran has been claiming it is an "Islamic democracy" for quite some time now. Khomeini himself initially spoke of establishing a "democratic republic" in 1978-79, because that was the slogan used by working-class and student protestors which he seized upon. This sounds pseudo-democratic enough for me.

That Iran is in a position to play imperialist powers off against each other doesn't mean that the Iranian working-class is not exploited by imperialism (which does invest in Iran) or that certain sections of the ruling class are not linked to imperialism, e.g. the "reformists" are clearly friendlier to the West than the "conservatives" (who are more comfortable with China and Russia.)