Marxism, Leninism, Marxism-Leninism [Archive]

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

22nd January 2015, 18:38

Marxism is a very broad category, and includes a lot of people who aren't 'Leninist', such as the Impossiblists of the SPGB or SLP (US, or the UK prior to 1980, not the current UK party of that name); most Left Communists and Council Communists (who don't usually see ourselves as 'Leninists' even if sometimes others do); Luxemburgists in so far as they exist as an organised current; and the 'Orthodox Marxists' who are followers of Kautsky.

'Leninists' come in two flavours really, 'Marxist-Leninists' (AKA Stalinists) and 'Bolshevik-Leninists' (AKA Trotskyists). They are distinguished by disagreements over the course of policy of the Soviet government in the period following the death of Lenin. Marxist-Leninists hold to the theory of 'socialism in one country' as practised under Stalin and his successors; Bolshevik-Leninists believe that this is a fundamental betrayal of the international nature of the revolution.

I don't think the "orthodox Marxists" in the sense in which the CPGB uses the term is really an actual current of Marxism. It's an exclusively British phenomenon, comprising one fairly small group. I don't think that is an argument against their politics, but it seems kind of silly to raise them to the status of a current.

I think it would be fair to classify some Bordigists as Leninists, but I don't know if they would agree.

There are also at least one fairly minor split from Trotskyism that uphold the idea of socialism in one country; the inimitable Barnesites. I think the remnants of the Pabloists sui generis moved in that direction as well, but I can't find any documents to back me up so I might have hallucinated that. Conversely, some of the splits from Trotskyism were decidedly non-Leninist; the Solidarity group in the UK for example (who split from, inconceivably, Healy's SLL).

Besides Left and Council Communists, the non-Leninists Marxists also include the autonomists, operaists in the narrow Italian sense, probably some of the "ultraleft Maoist" types, and so on, but again, I don't think "Luxemburgism" exists as an organised current. It's just something people call themselves to associate themselves with R. Luxemburg.

Guardia Rossa

22nd January 2015, 18:49

Celtic_0ne

22nd January 2015, 19:55

I don't think "Luxemburgism" exists as an organised current. It's just something people call themselves to associate themselves with R. Luxemburg.
I sure do wish there was, Im so lonelyyyyy:(

Blake's Baby

23rd January 2015, 09:27

I don't think the "orthodox Marxists" in the sense in which the CPGB uses the term is really an actual current of Marxism. It's an exclusively British phenomenon, comprising one fairly small group. I don't think that is an argument against their politics, but it seems kind of silly to raise them to the status of a current...

Q and the other Ortho-Marxists here would probably disagree. They're not all in Britain, in fact, it seems that most aren't. I know there are very few members of CPGB-PCC, but it really doesn't look good for a Left Comm to start criticising the size of other people's organisations, does it?

... I think it would be fair to classify some Bordigists as Leninists, but I don't know if they would agree...

Bordigists would. But I did say 'most Left Communists' and 'don't usually see ourselves as Leninists'. Yes, the Bordigists see themselves as Leninists. Other Left Comms - most of us - don't see ourselves as Leninists, though pretty obviously we're generally 'pro-Lenin', unlike the Council Communists.

... There are also at least one fairly minor split from Trotskyism that uphold the idea of socialism in one country; the inimitable Barnesites. I think the remnants of the Pabloists sui generis moved in that direction as well, but I can't find any documents to back me up so I might have hallucinated that. Conversely, some of the splits from Trotskyism were decidedly non-Leninist; the Solidarity group in the UK for example (who split from, inconceivably, Healy's SLL)...

I'm somewhat of a functionalist about these things. You develop a move towards SioC, you stop being a Trot. Solidarity became an anarcho-councilist group close to the poistions of Socialisme ou Barbarie, and then spawned the entire Communist Left in the UK, as far as I can tell - certainly the 68ers I know in the ICT and ICC in the UK all seem to have come out of Solidarity, as did the people around the CBG. But they developed away from Trotskyism, thereby qualifying as no-longer Trotskyist. Or you could call the entire Communist Left 'Trotskyist' (almost all of it was in the ILO at one point or another), or the Munis Group in Spain and Stinas's group in Greece who broke with Trotskyism towards the positions of the Communist Left 'Trotskyist'.

I've never heard of the 'Barnesites' by the way. And I've never encountered a Pabloist.

... Besides Left and Council Communists, the non-Leninists Marxists also include the autonomists, operaists in the narrow Italian sense, probably some of the "ultraleft Maoist" types, and so on, but again, I don't think "Luxemburgism" exists as an organised current. It's just something people call themselves to associate themselves with R. Luxemburg.

I'd forgotten about the autonomists. I've only ever met one in real life. But if breaks from Trotskyism are somehow still Trotskyist (as you seem to imply) aren't autonomists just 'Stalinists' as they came out of the PC in Italy?

I don't think they are obviously, but as I say, I'm a bit of a functionalist.

Maoists are Stalinists though aren't they? If they accept SioC, that is...

I'm aware this all becomes self-referential after a while. Stalinist = SioC, in my view, therefore everyone that accepts SioC is a Stalinist, no matter what they think of themselves.

As to 'Luxeburgism', well there are always a few people who claim it as a badge, myself included for a while.

newdayrising

23rd January 2015, 14:57

In Brazil we have some.
Who are they?

Diirez

23rd January 2015, 18:27

All Leninists are Marxists, but all Marxists are not Leninists.

Thirsty Crow

23rd January 2015, 19:20

I know Marxism-Leninism was Stalin's ideology, but some of his ideas are alien to those of Marx and Lenin.
This is true.

One of the fundamentally alien ideas introduced in the guise of Marxism-Leninism is that of the non-antagonistic social classes.
The elaboration in the On the Draft Constitution of the USSR is clear on this:

Unlike bourgeois constitutions, the draft of the new Constitution of the U.S.S.R. proceeds from the fact that there are no longer any antagonistic classes in society; that society consists of two friendly classes, of workers and peasants; that it is these classes, the labouring classes, that are in power; that the guidance of society by the state (the dictatorship) is in the hands of the working class, the most advanced class in society, that a constitution is needed for the purpose of consolidating a social order desired by, and beneficial to, the working people.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/11/25.htm

I don't think this idea was theorized to any significant extent; if it was some resident Marxist-Leninists can further illuminate the issue. As for my own view, I think it is clear that a) this is in direct contradiction to the fundamental view of social class upheld and promoted by Marx, for good reason, and b) that this "theoretical" innovation actually represents a haphazard adaptation to the needs of ideological mystification in the USSR.

On one hand, it was perfectly reasonable to keep "communism" - a classless and a stateless kind of society - on the distant horizon of some future. But on the other hand, the existing state of affairs couldn't be conceptualized in old terms no more, because every ruling class tends to represent its own interests as the "universal interest".

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

24th January 2015, 01:01

Q and the other Ortho-Marxists here would probably disagree. They're not all in Britain, in fact, it seems that most aren't. I know there are very few members of CPGB-PCC, but it really doesn't look good for a Left Comm to start criticising the size of other people's organisations, does it?

I never said that "Orthodox Marxism" in the sense in which the CPGB-PCC uses the term is not an actual current of modern Marxism because the CPGB-PCC is small. I imagine the various International Communist Parties are even smaller, yet I would classify Bordigism as, let's say, a sub-current within the broader Left Communist tradition.

My point was rather that the CPGB-PCC has no international influence. They have some similarities with the old Dev. Yol group (I think; to be honest I might be mistaking them with some other Yol), and they have sympathisers in various countries, including indeed the Netherlands if we adopt the fiction that Netherlands is real for a moment. But their only active organisation is in Britain, and even there it is concentrated in one area.

Having said that, I'm beginning to wonder if that criterion really makes sense. There are no organisations with the same politics as Workers World outside the US, for example, yet I think Marcyism is, or used to be, a sub-current of Leninism, occupying the same ambiguous space between Trotskyism and Stalinism as the Barnesites. But the politics of WWP are quite distinct, as is the theory behind them and the original Marcy-Copeland split. I wouldn't say the same goes for the CPGB-PCC.

(I also don't think I'm saying this simply because I dislike the politics of the PCC. They are, after all, not worse than Pablo, yet I think Pabloism is very much a sub-current of Leninism.)

I also think it's a bit too indulgent to give them the name "Orthodox Marxism". No one outside the PCC would agree that the line of the Weekly Worker is any sort of "orthodox" Marxism. And yes, I know the "Cannonites" sometimes call themselves "Orthodox Trotskyists", but this was something the Shachtman group called them, with the people close to the Militant (the US newspaper, not the later publication of the Grant group), and later the ICFI, appropriating the term for themselves.

I'm somewhat of a functionalist about these things. You develop a move towards SioC, you stop being a Trot. Solidarity became an anarcho-councilist group close to the poistions of Socialisme ou Barbarie, and then spawned the entire Communist Left in the UK, as far as I can tell - certainly the 68ers I know in the ICT and ICC in the UK all seem to have come out of Solidarity, as did the people around the CBG. But they developed away from Trotskyism, thereby qualifying as no-longer Trotskyist. Or you could call the entire Communist Left 'Trotskyist' (almost all of it was in the ILO at one point or another), or the Munis Group in Spain and Stinas's group in Greece who broke with Trotskyism towards the positions of the Communist Left 'Trotskyist'.

Sure, I agree with most of this. I never said groups like the SWP (US) are Trotskyists; I said they are splits from Trotskyism. At the same time I don't think we can call them Stalinists either. As I said, in a way they occupy the space between these two tendencies.

Functionally, of course, most of these groups are social-democrats, no matter what texts they quote.

I have to admit, I find it fascinating that Solidarity split from the SLL, that Healy's group was able to attract people whose politics were like that. To me it sounds like a "libertarian socialist" group splitting off from the RCPUSA. Then again, Healy seems to have attracted quite an eclectic group in his earlier years, before the bug-fucking insanity became apparent I guess, from Cochranites to people who would later consider themselves "Luxemburgists".

I've never heard of the 'Barnesites' by the way. And I've never encountered a Pabloist.

Barnesites are the modern SWP (US). The SWP used to be the most "orthodox" of the Trotskyist groups under Cannon, joined with the International Secretariat of Pablo and Mandel under the "honest revisionist" Hansen, then turned into some sort of pseudo-Castroist organisation after Barnes purged most of the "old guard". Now their prime concern seems to be gouging customers of Pathfinder Books.

I also find it hard to believe that you have never encountered a Pabloist; from what I understand, groups like the International Marxist Groups used to be present at almost every political event in Britain.

Blake's Baby

24th January 2015, 11:26

Yeah, sorry, I was mistaking the Pabloists with another group. I'm more familiar with group names (especially of British groups) than names of leaders I guess. It's my parochial upbringing.

And I'll give you the point about 'functional social-democrats' too.

John Nada

26th January 2015, 03:04

This is true.

One of the fundamentally alien ideas introduced in the guise of Marxism-Leninism is that of the non-antagonistic social classes.
The elaboration in the On the Draft Constitution of the USSR is clear on this:
Unlike bourgeois constitutions, the draft of the new Constitution of the U.S.S.R. proceeds from the fact that there are no longer any antagonistic classes in society; that society consists of two friendly classes, of workers and peasants; that it is these classes, the labouring classes, that are in power; that the guidance of society by the state (the dictatorship) is in the hands of the working class, the most advanced class in society, that a constitution is needed for the purpose of consolidating a social order desired by, and beneficial to, the working people. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/11/25.htm

I don't think this idea was theorized to any significant extent; if it was some resident Marxist-Leninists can further illuminate the issue. As for my own view, I think it is clear that a) this is in direct contradiction to the fundamental view of social class upheld and promoted by Marx, for good reason, and b) that this "theoretical" innovation actually represents a haphazard adaptation to the needs of ideological mystification in the USSR.

On one hand, it was perfectly reasonable to keep "communism" - a classless and a stateless kind of society - on the distant horizon of some future. But on the other hand, the existing state of affairs couldn't be conceptualized in old terms no more, because every ruling class tends to represent its own interests as the "universal interest".Not a Marxist-Leninist, but,
What, then, is our attitude towards the small peasantry? How shall we have to deal with it on the day of our accession to power?

To begin with, the French programme is absolutely correct in stating: that we foresee the inevitable doom of the small peasant, but that it is not our mission to hasten it by any interference on our part.

Secondly, it is just as evident that when we are in possession of state power, we shall not even think of forcibly expropriating the small peasants (regardless of whether with or without compensation), as we shall have to do in the case of the big landowners. Our task relative to the small peasant consists, in the first place, in effecting a transition of his private enterprise and private possession to cooperative ones, not forcibly but by dint of example and the proffer of social assistance for this purpose. And then, of course, we shall have ample means of showing to the small peasant prospective advantages that must be obvious to him even today.
Neither now, nor at any time in the future, can we promise the small-holding peasants to preserve their individual property and individual enterprise against the overwhelming power of capitalist production. We can only promise then that we shall not interfere in their property relations by force, against their will. Moreover, we can advocate that the struggle of the capitalists and big landlords against the small peasants should be waged from now on with a minimum of unfair means and that direct robbery and cheating, which are practiced only too often, be as far as possible prevented. In this we shall succeed only in exceptional cases. Under the developed capitalist mode of production, nobody can tell where honesty ends and cheating begins. But always it will make a considerable difference whether public authority is on the side of the cheater or the cheated. We, of course, are decidedly on the side of the small peasant; we shall do everything at all permissible to make his lot more bearable, to facilitate his transition to the co-operative should he decide to do so, and even to make it possible for him to remain on his small holding for a protracted length of time to think the matter over, should he still be unable to bring himself to this decision. We do this not only because we consider the small peasant living by his own labor as virtually belonging to us, but also in the direct interest of the Party. The greater the number of peasants whom we can save from being actually hurled down into the proletariat, whom we can win to our side while they are still peasants, the more quickly and easily the social transformation will be accomplished. It will serve us nought to wait with this transformation until capitalist production has developed everywhere to its utmost consequences, until the last small handicraftsman and the last small peasant have fallen victim to capitalist large-scale production. The material sacrifice to be made for this purpose in the interest of the peasants and to be defrayed out of public funds can, from the point of view of capitalist economy, be viewed only as money thrown away, but it is nevertheless an excellent investment because it will effect a perhaps tenfold saving in the cost of the social reorganization in general. In this sense, we can, therefore, afford to deal very liberally with the peasants. This is not the place to go into details, to make concrete proposals to that end; here we can deal only with general principles.Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/peasant-question/ch02.htm Bold mine.

Engels viewed the small peasants as a potential ally. He didn't think their property was something to preserve, but they would either be destroyed by capitalism, or transformed into common property. Either would turn them into workers.
The analysis in Capital therefore provides no reasons either for or against the vitality of the Russian commune. But the special study I have made of it, including a search for original source* material, has convinced me that the commune is the fulcrum for social regeneration in Russia. But in order that it might function as such, the harmful influences assailing it on all sides must first be eliminated, and it must then be assured the normal conditions for spontaneous development.Here Marx believed that the peasant communes could be positive, and should be protected.

What I find more questionable is the dictatorship of the working class vs. dictatorship of the proletariat.

Thirsty Crow

27th January 2015, 17:25

Engels viewed the small peasants as a potential ally.
Which is completely and utterly irrelevant to the point I'm making. The quotes from Engels' show a kind of strategic reasoning in relation to the class of small peasant proprietors, and Marx's quote also represents a way of thinking about the old communal property of the obschina as locus of revolutionary transformation in conjunction with proletarian revolution in the (then) developed capitalist countries.

On the other hand, Stalinism actually holds the notion of a class society - but not antagonistic class society, one that is composed of "two friendly classes". This isn't a matter of strategic political reasoning first and foremost - it is a characterization of USSR as a social formation, and that characterization ultimately rests on the notion of non-antagonistic class division (since the text I quoted refers to "classes", and where there are classes there are also class divisions of one kind or another - in the case of Stalinism, non-antagonistic class divisions).

Rafiq

27th January 2015, 18:56

On the other hand, Stalinism actually holds the notion of a class society - but not antagonistic class society, one that is composed of "two friendly classes". This isn't a matter of strategic political reasoning first and foremost - it is a characterization of USSR as a social formation, and that characterization ultimately rests on the notion of non-antagonistic class division (since the text I quoted refers to "classes", and where there are classes there are also class divisions of one kind or another - in the case of Stalinism, non-antagonistic class divisions).

The notion of non-antagonistic classes in the USSR is rational, whether it is true or not. If there was no recognition of non-antagonistic classes, then Soviet officials or theoreticians would have to have believed any combination of the following:

1) That antagonistic classes inherent to the previous order remained. Why would they believe this after the intensified campaign against the Kulak class? If they believed this, then a campaign would be waged against them. As it had been done.

2) That antagonistic classes inherent to the previous order, which were not previously known to be antagonistic remained. But the industrial worker class and the peasantry were not perceived to be antagonistic even upon inception of the October revolution. If they now were, this would have required an intensive re-evaluation of the foundations of Leninism - what would have prompted this?

3) That a new antagonistic class, the bureaucracy had arisen following the solidification of the Soviet state. This would have been completely contradictory, however - Marxism Leninism was the de-facto ideology of the bureaucracy. Finally the bureaucracy did not constitute a real class in any meaningful sense of the word - property was owned in common in the USSR - if bureaucrats, experts and administrators constitute a class then we need to re-evaluate our understanding of class relations in advanced capitalist countries, too.

The truth of the matter is that class antagonism had been eliminated in the USSR - but the point of relevance was not bound by the USSR but the international capitalist totality. What does this mean? Class antagonism was not eliminated affirmatively but as a temporal necessity for the destruction of the remnants of feudalism and the social cleansing for capitalist relations to arise once. Stalinism was in nature irrational, it was a continually degenerating state unable to perpetuate its existence in the long-run: Stalinism was essentially a prolonged Jacobin phrase of capitalist development (retrospectively, this is what it is in reference to our present condition) - it was not an affirmed, independent social epoch but part of a larger world capitalist totality.

Stalinism can only be understood as a political phenomena - not necessarily a social one, the social character of the USSR was consequential of politics. Stalinism was the manifestation of the necessity to abolish the remnants of feudalism consciously as the agentless workings of capital could not. Now, this is not to say that this was the initial intent of the founders of the Soviet state by any means - but retrospectively, if we look at the role played by Stalinism as it leads up to the shaping of our present condition, this was the purpose of Stalinism.

Thirsty Crow

27th January 2015, 19:43

The notion of non-antagonistic classes in the USSR is rational, whether it is true or not. Excellent.
Though, as a matter of fact, this concept is completely alien to the conceptual arsenal of Marxism. It's an innovation which can best be described as significant revision.

Of course, the motivation for this revision was immediately political - the need to legitimize the new order of affairs. Caught between nominal adherence to Marxism that posed the problem of classlessness and statelessness, the solution was to banish that postulate into the distant future so that existing conditions of accumulation and exploitation might be presented as a stepping stone, and masked as "achived socialism" which knows of no class antagonism.

If there was no recognition of non-antagonistic classes, then Soviet officials or theoreticians would have to have believed any combination of the following:

1) That antagonistic classes inherent to the previous order remained. Why would they believe this after the intensified campaign against the Kulak class? If they believed this, then a campaign would be waged against them. As it had been done.

Which only means that one particular class interest - that of the Soviet ruling class, probably still emergent during the 1930s - got in the way of thinking about social relations in USSR clearly. Which is not that surprising since that's covered by the Marxist critique of (ruling class ideology). And also unsurprisingly, that particular ruling class managed to present its own interests as the general interest.

There is no need here to insist on antagonistic class relations of the past. It is conceptually coherent to assume the possibility of a new kind of a class formation.

2) That antagonistic classes inherent to the previous order, which were not previously known to be antagonistic remained. But the industrial worker class and the peasantry were not perceived to be antagonistic even upon inception of the October revolution. If they now were, this would have required an intensive re-evaluation of the foundations of Leninism - what would have prompted this? That the peasantry was definitely considered an antagonistic class, one based on private property over lands and conditions of labor, is obvious, and can be "read off" both the tense town-countryside relationship, marked by requisitioning and violent struggle, during the Civil War, and the subsequent development which the NEP paved way for. Not to mention the process of the liquidation of kulaks.

3) That a new antagonistic class, the bureaucracy had arisen following the solidification of the Soviet state. This would have been completely contradictory, however - Marxism Leninism was the de-facto ideology of the bureaucracy. Finally the bureaucracy did not constitute a real class in any meaningful sense of the word - property was owned in common in the USSR - if bureaucrats, experts and administrators constitute a class then we need to re-evaluate our understanding of class relations in advanced capitalist countries, too. Yeah, property was owned in common. Right.
You might have a shot at distorting the real facts, that productive property was state owned (and that same state posed itself as the representative of the working class), by some appeal to the legal framework. But that doesn't even address the fact that surplus labor was extorted and pumped out of the direct producers, and appropriated by a specific social group. Following Marx, we tend to call those groups which do precisely this - classes. And again following Marx, legal forms aren't to be taken as decisive, but the way in which labor and conditions of labor (including the means and techniques of production) are specifically combined in order to produce human life and its conditions.
And yes, we most definitely need to re-evaluate (and make more complete) our understanding of class relations in advanced capitalist countries.

Anyway. I think two things are indisputable here: 1) That Soviet society was characterized as socialism, meaning a society of two non-antagonistic classes where productive property is nationalized, by its official ideologues and 2) that this very characterization, itself a puzzle piece in political struggle, rests on an entirely new notion, and one that is completely alien to the Marxist tradition - that of the non-antagonistic classes ("friendly classes"). As I said, I'm not aware of any theoretical elaboration of the notion, but it is there.

Rafiq

27th January 2015, 23:24

That the peasantry was definitely considered an antagonistic class, one based on private property over lands and conditions of labor, is obvious, and can be "read off" both the tense town-countryside relationship, marked by requisitioning and violent struggle, during the Civil War, and the subsequent development which the NEP paved way for. Not to mention the process of the liquidation of kulaks.

In context to the soviet constitutions, land-owning peasants as the kulaks were already socially liquidated - the peasants as such were not considered antagonistic: only profiteering land owning peasants were. With context to the 1936 constitution, the peasants being referred to do not fall to these qualifications.

Yeah, property was owned in common. Right.
You might have a shot at distorting the real facts, that productive property was state owned (and that same state posed itself as the representative of the working class), by some appeal to the legal framework. But that doesn't even address the fact that surplus labor was extorted and pumped out of the direct producers, and appropriated by a specific social group. Following Marx, we tend to call those groups which do precisely this - classes. And again following Marx, legal forms aren't to be taken as decisive, but the way in which labor and conditions of labor (including the means and techniques of production) are specifically combined in order to produce human life and its conditions.

The point is not that we recognize property being held in common as a matter of legal self-declaration, but that private property had been eliminated. Property was indeed state owned, but the state in every meaningful sense of the word, no matter how undemocratic, operated on behalf of the commons - of society as a whole. Which "specific social group" do you refer to, and how in any meaningful sense did they utilize "surplus labor" in a way which entailed class relations, or antagonistic relations of private property? The only semblance of an argument which is possible here, perhaps even more ridiculous, is that surplus value was extracted to support the infinitely luxurious lifestyle of state-officials. But this doesn't constitute class relations in the most meaningful sense of the word - even during the high-points of oriental despotism, there was always an identifiable class of nobles and aristocrats whose interests at any given moment could contradict each other. No matter how planned, controlled or managed economies were, private property endured. Even in, for example ancient China during the very brief Wang-Mang dynasty, popularly referred to as proto-socialist, the "radical" land distribution policies still did not abolish private property or the aristocracy, they were simply subordinate to the state. In the Soviet Union, capitalist or feudal relations were not simply 'retained' under the direction of the state, they were abolished all together. While there is a key difference between saying political power was democratically controlled and property was owned in common: Disproportionate relations of power or status do not constitute real and definite, historically rational class relations - as I have already said, Stalinist states were entirely political in nature with absolutely no affirmative social character. This sounds like an anomaly as naturally, property in common should entail democracy by nature - but these WERE anomalies - property relations were not affirmative but could only ever be temporal. Strictly speaking, with consciousness ANYTHING is possible - you could have Obama declare himself a socialist people's emperor - the point is that it wouldn't last for more than a day. To say that there was a "soviet ruling class" entails that the Soviet Union had an affirmative social character to begin with which could have continually perpetuated its existence, i.e. a real identifiable social epoch. The fact of the matter is that these were all bastards of history - their existence only rational insofar as it paved the way for capitalist relations to develop.

Administrators do not constitute an actual class - surplus value can only ever be extracted insofar as it regards the variable of profit - non-existent in Stalinist countries. The state did not "profit" off of the working people, as though the USSR was one big mega capitalist enterprise. This is further evidenced by the fact that the means of production following industrialization were seldom improved, they were not revolutionized which led to massive stagnation. The real message you're trying to convey is that the a "ruling class" existed in the Soviet Union because the workers were not consciously in political control over their affairs democratically. This doesn't constitute specific class relations.

Tim Redd

28th January 2015, 00:37

Marxism, Leninism, Marxism-Leninism - What are the differences and similarities between these three ideologies...

Leninism (aka Marxism-Leninism) is the theoretical extension of Marxism as it applies in the era, or context of monopoly capitalism (or what is the same, in the era, or context of imperialism (as Lenin defines imperialism.)).

I know Marxism-Leninism was Stalin's ideology, but some of his ideas are alien to those of Marx and Lenin.

Stalinism claims to be based upon Marxism-Leninism, but there are major differences. Stalinism operates according to mainly top down policy and processes whereas Maoists, the next evolution of Marxism, operates according to the mass line.

For a Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, Maoist party to determine a political or other position of the party, the party uses the procedure of the mass line. The mass line: #1) begins discussion amongst the masses on the issue. #2) applies Marxist theory to the outcome of #1 and then #3) formulates a position. Step #4 reviews the practical outcome of #3 and adjusts the policy based upon that review.

Tim Redd

28th January 2015, 01:12

What are the differences and similarities between these three ideologies (Marxism, Leninism, Marxism-Leninism)?

The 3 terms are all the same in the sense that they represent the scientifically valid evolution of Marxism over time.

However, it should be pointed out that nearly everyone who accepts the concept of Leninism also sees that as equivalent with the concept of Marxism-Leninism.

Leninism is the extension of Marxism to the time, era, or epoch of monopoly capitalism.

Before Lenin capitalism is often called "free" or "competitive" capitalism. In this era there were few vertically integrated firms that for example extracted or harvested products from the fields, drilling wells, or mines to the processing of those raw materials to the creation of products that met the needs of customers and consumers.

In his book "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism" Lenin pointed out how the nature of Imperialism, which came after Marx died, modified the nature of capitalism and thus fundamentally modified the nature of the worldwide proletarian struggle against capitalism.

Stalin had his ups and downs in terms of upholding Marxism-Leninism. In many ways he operated contrary to Marxism-Leninism and in other ways he did in fact operate according to Marxism-Leninism.

He did some very progressive acts based upon the success in defeating the Germans. It's hard to say what I think about Stalin as a whole, but as a preliminary judgement, I'll say that overall he was more harmful than positive for the worldwide proletarian struggle. In many ways he helped the socialist movement and in others was an abomination.

Blake's Baby

28th January 2015, 09:09

The 3 terms are all the same in the sense that they represent the scientifically valid evolution of Marxism over time.

Hoever, it should be pointed out that nearly everyone who accepts the concept of Leninism also sees that as equivalent with the concept of Marxism-Leninism...

Except, you know, Trotskyists (Bolshevik-Leninists). Marxist-Leninism is what Stalinists call themselves (whether of the pro- or anti-Mao variety).

Even some Left Comms regard themselves as Leninists, though the numbers are tiny.

Tim Redd

29th January 2015, 06:32

Except, you know, Trotskyists (Bolshevik-Leninists).

Actually it's Trotskyist-Menshevik. The Menshevik position which was the main oppsosition to Leninist Bolshevism, was in large part made up of both Trotkskyist and Social Revolutionary tendencies.

Tim Redd

29th January 2015, 06:35

The state did not "profit" off of the working people, as though the USSR was one big mega capitalist enterprise. This is further evidenced by the fact that the means of production following industrialization were seldom improved, they were not revolutionized which led to massive stagnation. The real message you're trying to convey is that the a "ruling class" existed in the Soviet Union because the workers were not consciously in political control over their affairs democratically. This doesn't constitute specific class relations.

If the means of production were never really revolutionized then there would remain a component of profiting off the masses leftover from the former regime.

Blake's Baby

29th January 2015, 08:56

Actually it's Trotskyist-Menshevik. The Menshevik position which was the main oppsosition to Leninist Bolshevism, was in large part made up of both Trotkskyist and Social Revolutionary tendencies.

I'm sorry, have you discovered a new tendency that no-one else knows about?

The Stalinists called themselves 'Marxist-Leninists'.

The Trotskyists called themselves 'Bolshevik-Leninists'.

Do you dispute these basic facts of 20th century history?

Rafiq

29th January 2015, 18:27

If the means of production were never really revolutionized then there would remain a component of profiting off the masses leftover from the former regime.

You don't know what you're talking about. Relations to production changed yes, but the means of production as they were established during industrialization did not, for the most part change - or were not revolutionized. What does that mean?

In capitalist societies, the means of production are regularly and constantly revolutionized for more efficient means of capitalist accumulation and profit. This was not the case in the USSR. The notion of a group of fat cats "profiting" off of the masses is an ideological extraction, it doesn't mean shit. Revolutionizing the means of production does not entail social revolution as far as Marxist phraseology goes.

Tim Redd

30th January 2015, 03:35

You don't know what you're talking about....

And you're clueless.

Revolutionizing the means of production does not entail social revolution as far as Marxist phraseology goes.

Sure it does in the Marxist "phraseology" that I have read and read. Revolutionizing is taken as socialization in most of the Marxist literature, I've read.

Tim Redd

30th January 2015, 03:45

I'm sorry, have you discovered a new tendency that no-one else knows about?

You do know in Russian that boleshevik means majority and menshevik means minority? Those in the Soviets who voted with Lenin's majority line - the Bolsheviks - were opposed by the minority - Mensheviks. And the Mensheviks mostly consisted of Trotksy, his cohorts and the Social Revolutionaries. Nothing new for those who are well read in Lenin for this period.

Blake's Baby

30th January 2015, 08:45

I'm tolerably well read in both Lenin and Trotsky, thanks.

The 'Bolsheviks/Mensheviks' split had nothing to do with the soviets. There were no 'soviets' at the conference where Lenin's line on party membership was accepted by the majority and the names became those of the two main tendencies in the RSDLP.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

30th January 2015, 12:02

Actually it's Trotskyist-Menshevik. The Menshevik position which was the main oppsosition to Leninist Bolshevism, was in large part made up of both Trotkskyist and Social Revolutionary tendencies.

And now we're getting into the genre of historical fantasy, as not only is Trotskyism dated to several decades before the foundation of the Fourth International (and before that objection is raised, yes, people sometimes talked about "Trotskyism", meaning the personal political line of one L. D. Trotsky, in the period, but this is not the same "Trotskyism" as modern Trotskyism, in fact it's almost its exact opposite, and it was not an organised current), but Social-Revolutionaries are implied to have been Mensheviks, which is certainly something that would have surprised the actual Esers and Mensheviks.

But what makes all of this so deliciously hypocritical is that two-stage revolutions and alliances with the "good" bourgeoisie are Menshevism 101.

Tim Redd

30th January 2015, 17:14

Administrators do not constitute an actual class - surplus value can only ever be extracted insofar as it regards the variable of profit - non-existent in Stalinist countries. The state did not "profit" off of the working people, as though the USSR was one big mega capitalist enterprise.

The primary determination of whether or not profit exists, or is being extracted from the process of production by some group(s) is whether or not production is controlled in such a way that it supports a correct political agenda of the communist party. A political agenda that most quickly ultimately moves the means of production and society as whole toward further socialization/revolutionization. This includes combatting rightists (including outright capitalist roaders) in the state and party who would uphold or move things away from the quickest route to achieving the greatest level possible of socialization/revolutionization in most minimum amount of time possible.

RedKobra

30th January 2015, 17:27

You do know in Russian that boleshevik means majority and menshevik means minority? Those in the Soviets who voted with Lenin's majority line - the Bolsheviks - were opposed by the minority - Mensheviks. And the Mensheviks mostly consisted of Trotksy, his cohorts and the Social Revolutionaries. Nothing new for those who are well read in Lenin for this period.

Hold on. The Social Revolutionaries were NOT Mensheviks. They were pro-peasant socialists who's support came predominantly from the peasantry. Their slogan was 'The Land To The Peasants'. The SR's had grown out of a much more radical insurrectionist anti-Tsarist movement. Kerensky was a leading Social Revolutionary, he was certainly not a Menshevik. The Mensheviks on the other hand were the dawdling and timid urban-intelligentsia who when push came to shove reverted to class type and balked at actual socialist revolution.

Tim Redd

30th January 2015, 17:58

The 'Bolsheviks/Mensheviks' split had nothing to do with the soviets.

Not so sure it had ultimately nothing to do with the soviets, but the Bolshevik/Menshevik spit did begin more than a decade before the soviets came into being.

Tim Redd

30th January 2015, 18:02

Hold on. The Social Revolutionaries were NOT Mensheviks. They were pro-peasant socialists who's support came predominantly from the peasantry. Their slogan was 'The Land To The Peasants'. The SR's had grown out of a much more radical insurrectionist anti-Tsarist movement. Kerensky was a leading Social Revolutionary, he was certainly not a Menshevik. The Mensheviks on the other hand were the dawdling and timid urban-intelligentsia who when push came to shove reverted to class type and balked at actual socialist revolution.

Yes, the SR's had noting to do with the internal split in the Russian Social Democratic Party between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks that began in the early 1900's.

Nevertheless the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries often acted in tandem and mostly just as they were counterrevolutionary individually, they were also counterrevolutionary in tandem. And they were active in tandem in the soviets during the pre-1917 period of revolution.

Please refer to these pieces from Lenin as evidence.

"In What Way Do You Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik Gentlemen Differ From Plekhanov?" -July 4 1917.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/04a.htm

"To What State Have the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks Brought the Revolution?" -July 5 1917.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/05.htm

RedKobra

30th January 2015, 18:09

You do know in Russian that boleshevik means majority and menshevik means minority? Those in the Soviets who voted with Lenin's majority line - the Bolsheviks - were opposed by the minority - Mensheviks. And the Mensheviks mostly consisted of Trotksy, his cohorts and the Social Revolutionaries. Nothing new for those who are well read in Lenin for this period.

I was specifically referring to the part in bold. The Mensheviks did not consist or Trotsky or the SR's. Trotsky was a fence sitter between the B's & the M's. As I've already said the SR's were not in any sense Mensheviks. The SR's to my knowledge did not consist of any ex-RSDLP members. The Mensheviks were almost entirely constituted of former RSDLP members. The Menshevik program was about winning power for the Proletariat through collaberation with the bourgeoisie. The SR program before their own split was for a government of the bourgeoisie and the distribution of land from the landlords to the peasants.

Rafiq

30th January 2015, 18:15

Sure it does in the Marxist "phraseology" that I have read and read. Revolutionizing is taken as socialization in most of the Marxist literature, I've read.

Do you deny that capitalism revolutionizes the means of production continually as a means of avoiding crises?

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

What does this mean? It means that in previous social epochs, class hegemony was retained through "fixed, fast-frozen relations" while for the bourgeoisie hegemony is retained through the continual revolutionising of the means, not mode, of production. It doe not mean that the bourgeoisie is simply "changing" society, it means that under the bourgeois society will continually change with social relations to production intact. It would seem that most "Marxist literature" you've read is complete bullshit in this context.

Rafiq

30th January 2015, 18:20

The primary determination of whether or not profit exists, or is being extracted from the process of production by some group(s) is whether or not production is controlled in such a way that it supports a correct political agenda of the communist party.

This is whole-heartedly unscientific and nothing short of an ignorant ideological platitude. The idea that relations of production, or conditions of production somehow change their actual character because of the noble intent of those in power is completely fucking stupid.

During the NEP, no one, not Lenin or anyone denied that profit was being extracted or still existed. It was not dependent on the endeavors of the state. You could try to argue that "profit extraction" may or may not lead to Communism depending on whether it supports the 'correct' "political agenda" (what infantile phraseology) of the Communist party, but ultimately, this fails to make a real judgement of whether profit ACTUALLY exists or not. In your mind, if relations to production were the same, but the "communist party" had an "incorrect" agenda, this would somehow change relations to production? Wow, so true to the spirit of Marxism are you, Redd!

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

30th January 2015, 18:28

Rafiq can you explain why you think a lack of conscious control over economic and politcal activity does not represent a contradiction in terms of emancipatory politics?

Rafiq

30th January 2015, 19:19

Rafiq can you explain why you think a lack of conscious control over economic and politcal activity does not represent a contradiction in terms of emancipatory politics?

What exactly are you referring to?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

30th January 2015, 19:21

Rafiq

30th January 2015, 19:29

"The real message you're trying to convey is that the a "ruling class" existed in the Soviet Union because the workers were not consciously in political control over their affairs democratically. This doesn't constitute specific class relations."

Yes, and what of it?

as I have already said, Stalinist states were entirely political in nature with absolutely no affirmative social character. This sounds like an anomaly as naturally, property in common should entail democracy by nature - but these WERE anomalies - property relations were not affirmative but could only ever be temporal. Strictly speaking, with consciousness ANYTHING is possible - you could have Obama declare himself a socialist people's emperor - the point is that it wouldn't last for more than a day. To say that there was a "soviet ruling class" entails that the Soviet Union had an affirmative social character to begin with which could have continually perpetuated its existence, i.e. a real identifiable social epoch. The fact of the matter is that these were all bastards of history - their existence only rational insofar as it paved the way for capitalist relations to develop.

You make the error in assuming I am trying to say that the Soviet Union was a proletarian dictatorship, or whatever. Class is not reducible to ideological rhetoric (i.e. No ruling class = good, emancipatory politics). One cannot understand history in terms of "what things are" but what things constitute themselves as within a wider totality. That there was no ruling class in the Soviet Union does not mean emancipatory politics reigned supreme - and certainly it does not mean the Soviet Union was a distinct historic epoch. It was a prolonged political phrase - a temporal condition of production whose retrospective purpose was the abolition of feudal relations to production where capitalism could not.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

30th January 2015, 19:45

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. So you believe that no separate class existed because they were unable to ensure their continued reproduction, am I understanding that correctly?

Rafiq

30th January 2015, 19:49

Somewhat, yes.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

30th January 2015, 20:23

But why does their inability to reproduce themselves (I would argue that they did manage to do so for several decades..) necessarily show that the upper echelons of the party never represented a separate class?

Rafiq

30th January 2015, 21:31

Because a class as such possesses an affirmative existence - that is, a class is able to designate specific relations to production which are distinct and self-sufficient in their social character. While the state-bureaucracy, administrators could be designated as a separate identifiable group as such, they do not meet the qualifications of a class.

A class is composed of individuals whose existence necessitates a state as a medium - i.e. they possess interests which are above all individual interests with regard to relations of production. A feudal aristocracy, for one, can fight amongst each other not in a factional sense but in a real economic sense, i.e. taking over manors and so on. They possess only a common interest insofar as they seek to retain their status as a class - not simply power for the sake of it, but their ability to retain their social existence.

Conversely in the Soviet Union, despite their luxuries and despite the careerism, individuals were instruments of the rule of the state, which represented commons. Private property relations did not exist - all property was owned in common with the common point of reference being the state. While this may have been undemocratic - the state was the sole representative, administrator of society in general rather than an instrument of an affirmative class rule, in comparison to societies composed of private property wherein society possesses no comment point of interest, i.e. the state perpetuates the rule of a class which possess a distinct relationship to the process of production designated by, in whatever form, the ownership of private property.

This lacked an affirmative social character insofar as the Soviet Union's prolonged existence is owed to its relentless struggle against previous, more backward relations to production and the elimination of their political and ideological remnants - entailing a negative purpose. Once this was achieved, Soviet society greatly stagnated, unable to "go anywhere". The reason for this was due to the fact that the industrial proletariat, already a minority for the most part died during the civil war. This left the intelligentsia up to the task of destroying the remnants of feudalism in order for a proletarian dictatorship to exist. But there was a dissonance in relations of power created in the process, and the newly formed classes lacked political power - not because the bureaucracy was so greedy - but that they had entered into a new social being in a non-conscious manner and society had yet to be molded by their self-consciousness.

Fakeblock

31st January 2015, 02:22

The notion of non-antagonistic classes in the USSR is rational, whether it is true or not. If there was no recognition of non-antagonistic classes, then Soviet officials or theoreticians would have to have believed any combination of the following:

1) That antagonistic classes inherent to the previous order remained. Why would they believe this after the intensified campaign against the Kulak class? If they believed this, then a campaign would be waged against them. As it had been done.

2) That antagonistic classes inherent to the previous order, which were not previously known to be antagonistic remained. But the industrial worker class and the peasantry were not perceived to be antagonistic even upon inception of the October revolution. If they now were, this would have required an intensive re-evaluation of the foundations of Leninism - what would have prompted this?

3) That a new antagonistic class, the bureaucracy had arisen following the solidification of the Soviet state. This would have been completely contradictory, however - Marxism Leninism was the de-facto ideology of the bureaucracy. Finally the bureaucracy did not constitute a real class in any meaningful sense of the word - property was owned in common in the USSR - if bureaucrats, experts and administrators constitute a class then we need to re-evaluate our understanding of class relations in advanced capitalist countries, too.

The truth of the matter is that class antagonism had been eliminated in the USSR - but the point of relevance was not bound by the USSR but the international capitalist totality. What does this mean? Class antagonism was not eliminated affirmatively but as a temporal necessity for the destruction of the remnants of feudalism and the social cleansing for capitalist relations to arise once. Stalinism was in nature irrational, it was a continually degenerating state unable to perpetuate its existence in the long-run: Stalinism was essentially a prolonged Jacobin phrase of capitalist development (retrospectively, this is what it is in reference to our present condition) - it was not an affirmed, independent social epoch but part of a larger world capitalist totality.

Stalinism can only be understood as a political phenomena - not necessarily a social one, the social character of the USSR was consequential of politics. Stalinism was the manifestation of the necessity to abolish the remnants of feudalism consciously as the agentless workings of capital could not. Now, this is not to say that this was the initial intent of the founders of the Soviet state by any means - but retrospectively, if we look at the role played by Stalinism as it leads up to the shaping of our present condition, this was the purpose of Stalinism.

You're on some dangerous teleological ground here. The fact that the undermining of feudal relations was a consequence of Stalinism does not mean that it was its "purpose". You would have to conclude that, by the will of some mysterious force, Stalinism was meant to fail from the very beginning, in order to pave the way for capitalism in Russia. History can't be read from the present backwards.

Stalinism can only be explained as a consequence of the balance of forces in the class struggle in that particular historical moment. It could not have been a means through which history enacted its will and brought capitalist social relations to dominance in backwards nations - however appealing this idea may seem retrospectively. Once the teleology is rejected, however, it becomes significantly more difficult to explain why a social formation, supposedly free of class struggle, needed such an extensive political-legal structure to sustain itself and how such a social formation even developed in the first place.

Tim Redd

31st January 2015, 04:28

Originally Posted by Tim Redd http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2818185#post2818185)
The primary determination of whether or not profit exists, or is being extracted from the process of production by some group(s) is whether or not production is controlled in such a way that it supports a correct political agenda of the communist party.

This is whole-heartedly unscientific and nothing short of an ignorant ideological platitude. The idea that relations of production, or conditions of production somehow change their actual character because of the noble intent of those in power is completely fucking stupid.

A state of affairs where production is being carried out contrary to the short and long term strategy of the communist party would be something that exists as a material fact. If predominantly, the aim of production and other aspects of reality run counter to the best strategy to achieve the most rapid elimination of classes and all social exploitation and oppression, then exploitation of the working class exists.

This change isn't just a matter of ideas. It is matter that will ultimately affect the material circumstances of all classes and strata in the society.

Tim Redd

31st January 2015, 07:05

Originally Posted by Tim Redd http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2817956#post2817956)
If the means of production were never really revolutionized then there would remain a component of profiting off the masses leftover from the former regime.

You don't know what you're talking about.

What is it about your personality that you can't just respond intellectually, but that it makes you feel the need to take low life, ad hominem digs at those with whom you debate? What should be an open, honest, potentially information creating discussion is dragged into a psychopathic swamp with your scummy attitude. Must you always make things ugly? Even if you were God, I would spit on your feet for such regular anti-social behavior. You carry on like a crotchety old man.

Relations to production changed yes, but the means of production as they were established during industrialization did not, for the most part change - or were not revolutionized. What does that mean?In the first place, in most political economists lingo it's relations "of" production not relations "to" production. And they are a key component/aspect of the means of production. The other major component of the means of production are the forces of production - that is the technology and other material aspects of production. In addition, workers as laborers are an element of the forces of production not just the relations of production.

In capitalist societies, the means of production are regularly and constantly revolutionized for more efficient means of capitalist accumulation and profit. Revolutionizing the means of production does not entail social revolution as far as Marxist phraseology goes.

The term revolution and revolutionizing can be applied to any process or thing that undergoes major qualitative change. In the current capitalist advertising hype context, any major change(s) in the forces of production is taken as revolutionary as a matter of course. Thus nowadays when many if not most Marxists use the term "revolutionizing", they often mean an increase in the socialization of the entity/entities being referred to. This was especially true for the Chinese and Albanian communists before Mao passed in 1976.

This was not the case in the USSR. The notion of a group of fat cats "profiting" off of the masses is an ideological extraction, it doesn't mean shit.

If a group controls the output of production mainly to benefit and or enrich themselves rather than use it to further the cause of abolishing classes and eliminating all exploitation and oppression worldwide, then that group is a real, material, actually existing bourgeois element that must be confronted and removed from their positions of power.

Confronting and removing rightists and capitalist roaders is the essence of what the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR) in China was about. Mao initiated and led the GPCR from the mid '60's to 1976 when Mao died in 1976. This kind of cultural revolution is vital to having a truly revolutionary society after the initial seizure of power by the proletariat in a socialist revolution. It must be carried out on regular basis or eventually the proletariat in that country will be overthrown by capitalist elements.

Unfortunately the capitalists took over immediately after Mao died, but it would have occurred years earlier without the GPCR.

Tim Redd

31st January 2015, 07:55

RedKobra

31st January 2015, 12:20

The Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries often acted in tandem and mostly just as they were counterrevolutionary individually, they were also counterrevolutionary in tandem. And they were active in tandem in the soviets during the pre-1917 period of revolution.

Please refer to these pieces from Lenin as evidence.

"In What Way Do You Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik Gentlemen Differ From Plekhanov?" -July 4 1917.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...17/jul/04a.htm (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/04a.htm)

"To What State Have the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks Brought the Revolution?" -July 5 1917.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...917/jul/05.htm (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/05.htm)

These articles don't contradict what I'm saying. I didn't suggest that the Menshaviks and the right SR's weren't in cahoots as members of the Provisional Government, just that they were two very distinct movements with very different supporter bases. The defence of the bourgeois state united them on issues such as the war, the impossibility in the short to mid-term of socialism/redistribution of land and the working class taking a back seat to the bourgeoisie in the future government. They most certainly were but as I say they had very different "supposed" agendas.

The Mensheviks were counter-revolutionaires, the right SR's were also counter-revolutionaries, the SR's were, however, not Menshiviks. Its also incorrect to call Trotsky in any meaningful sense a Menshevik. I'm not a fan of Trotsky by any means but he did not support the Provisional Government and saw through the lies of the Mensheviks in power.

Also to clarify, Kerensky was technically a Trudovik, although the Trudovik's were closely aligned with the larger SR's. Over time the SR's became more and more indistinguishable from the Trudoviks.

Rafiq

31st January 2015, 22:34

You're on some dangerous teleological ground here. The fact that the undermining of feudal relations was a consequence of Stalinism does not mean that it was its "purpose". You would have to conclude that, by the will of some mysterious force, Stalinism was meant to fail from the very beginning, in order to pave the way for capitalism in Russia. History can't be read from the present backwards.

Stalinism can only be explained as a consequence of the balance of forces in the class struggle in that particular historical moment. It could not have been a means through which history enacted its will and brought capitalist social relations to dominance in backwards nations - however appealing this idea may seem retrospectively. Once the teleology is rejected, however, it becomes significantly more difficult to explain why a social formation, supposedly free of class struggle, needed such an extensive political-legal structure to sustain itself and how such a social formation even developed in the first place.

Well - of course you are right. It would be ridiculous to claim that there ever existed any purpose whatsoever as far as Stalinism went. But this wasn't my point. Not only is it better to read history backwards - one could only ever read history backwards as a means of articulating the struggles of the past into struggles of now. Any attempt to read history otherwise would already be projecting our pre-conceived understanding of totality (based on our own) onto previous events without knowing it. What does this mean? It certainly does not mean that when they actually happened an inevitable march to our present condition had anything to do with it. It means that history should be read insofar as a series of events which rationally have led up to our present condition. So with today as a point of reference, we can say that the retrospective purpose of Stalinism in leading up the rise of our present global totality was the the abolition of feudal relations and the creation of the social predispositions to capitalism. That does not mean alternative history would have been impossible, but that it the way it happened necessarily is responsible for our present circumstance, from which we are even able to look back in the first place.

The fact is that the intelligentsia, and later an administrative bureaucracy was forced to, as a conscious agent representing a commons, substitute the role of the bourgeoisie in destroying feudal relations. Not to say they 'filled their shoes' as a social force but that they carried out a task consciously which would have otherwise been carried out in a non-conscious, economic manner. The bourgeoisie are not "class conscious" - the destruction of feudal relations did not happen because they cared about this specifically per se, but because it was consequential of their rising social hegemony. In the Soviet Union, among other Communist states, capitalist development was unable to fulfill this task and the remnants of feudalism persisted alongside capitalist development.

Classes and social antagonism in these states did not exist, but that is not to say that social antagonism had nothing to do with these states. What does that mean? Throughout their existence, they became a part of the backdrop of a rising, wider global community - a global capitalist totality. Social antagonism did play a major part in the formation of these states insofar as their formation, persistence and finally their collapse had everything to do with a wider global social antagonism. These states didn't exist independently from the rest of the world - capitalism remained the dominant historic mode of production throughout their entire existence. The 20th century as a historic epoch remained a capitalist social epoch. Now had an alternate history occurred - i.e. a success of the revolutions in Western Europe, a world war whereby the Soviet Union would be victorious, this may have not ended up being the case. But as these did not happen - it is.

Rafiq

31st January 2015, 22:41

If a group controls the output of production mainly to benefit and or enrich themselves rather than use it to further the cause of abolishing classes and eliminating all exploitation and oppression worldwide, then that group is a bourgeois element that must be confronted and removed from their positions of power.

You are ascribing real phenomena with meta-ideological coronations. That profit existed, per se, does not mean that it contradicted the interests of the "ruling Communist party" - the NEP for example. Again, answer me: Do you deny that profit existed during the NEP? You can make an argument about whether or not the presence of profit in the short term was desirable, strategically beneficial or whatever you want - but this does not invalidate the existence of profit.

You are incapable of understanding that capitalism as a process, as a mode of production dose not "care" about fulfilling an idea. It is not some kind of idea whereby all facets of it are somehow to be opposed just for the fuck of it. Capitalists do not seek profit because they are trying to suppress pseudo-Marxism Leninism, they do so in defining their social interest and constituting themselves as a real force. You don't understand logic.

I'm going to overlook all of this bullshit, whether or not I agree with the so-called "correct position" of the Communist party, but let's play the devil's advocate. Whether in the long term it is supportive of the interests of the ruling Communist party does not designate the existence of profit as non-existing. The existence of profit may in the long term be strategically beneficial, but that does not invalidate its existence. Profit is not defined by the "political intent" of those who are allowing for its existence, but by a real identifiable material process which exists independent of Tim Redd's meta ideology.

Tim Redd

1st February 2015, 01:06

The issue of when or whether or not profit exists in a given set of circumstances is a complex issue to which frankly I'm giving great thought to and for which I can't say I have definite answer at this time.

A given society where the dictatorship of the proletariat (dotp) exists may have simultaneously, multiple modes (types) of production operating within it. Some modes may involve the accumulation of profit. Nevertheless depending upon how such profit making fits in the overall functioning of the dotp, it may or may not further the cause of the movement toward communism.

Tim Redd

26th February 2015, 04:51

Classes and social antagonism in these states did not exist, but that is not to say that social antagonism had nothing to do with these states. What does that mean? Throughout their existence, they became a part of the backdrop of a rising, wider global community - a global capitalist totality. Social antagonism did play a major part in the formation of these states insofar as their formation, persistence and finally their collapse had everything to do with a wider global social antagonism.

Thus there existed issues that caused social antagonism to remain a potent factor in the development of the socioeconomic circumstances in the Soviet Union.

Further I posit that the primary forces behind those social antagonism were class elements exerting force in various ways.

G4b3n

27th February 2015, 08:16