Outline of a Socialist Critique of the USSR [Archive]

Led Zeppelin

23rd November 2005, 11:51

Central to the socialist critique is how the soviet economy developed after the revolution. This is the quintessence of Marxism, and its rejection represents, in my view, a non-Marxist standpoint. To reject the issue of economic transformation of the society in the aftermath of the revolution as the issue which must be examined in relation to the Soviet experience, amounts to neglecting or omitting the question altogether. Why?

Firstly, the socialist revolution is basically an economic revolution, and only on this basis can it be a social revolution. The fact that in the Marxism of our time this point has fallen into oblivion, the fact that Marxism has been reduced from the theory of social revolution, to the 'science' of how to conquer political power, is itself an indication of the increasing use made of Marxism by non-proletarian layers of society as a veil for non-revolutionary, non-socialist interests. Fundamental to the social revolution is the revolutionary transformation of the economy; not in a quantitative sense, namely, a change in the quantity of production, but in the sense that Marx uses the term, i.e. the transformation of the social relations of production - which will also definitely bring about a rapid promotion in the productive power of society. For, such issues as democracy, the abolition of legal, political, cultural, and even economic differences among individuals, social strata and even nations, none are novel ideas particular to Marxism. These are the old ideals of humankind. What gives Marxism a special status and significance is that it links these ideals, these demands, with the overthrow of a certain economic order, with that of the given relations of production which create the working class with a certain position in the social production. Socialism and communism are themselves the product of the struggle of this class against the present class-structured, exploitative relations in the existing society, i.e. the capitalist. This struggle will have reached its goal only when bourgeois ownership is abolished and common ownership of the means of production established. If we take this away from Marxism, nothing novel and special remains of it. Marxism clearly proves that in the absence of such a change in the economic base of society those ideals will lack the material basis for their definitive realization. It is therefore clear that from the point of view of the working class, and from the standpoint of the revolutionary transformation of society, the criterion for judging any socialist revolution (including the October Revolution) is its success or failure to achieve this goal.

Therefore, the discussion about the Russian revolution and its consequences can and should be focused on this question: why and under what circumstances did the conquest of political power by the working class not lead to the radical transformation of the capitalist foundation of society. This is the gist of proletarian socialist critique of the experience of the Russian revolution as a working-class revolution.

Thus, right from the beginning, I stress the profound (and in my view, class) difference which exists between my outlook and those outlooks which base their analyses on the 'impossibility' of the economic transformation of the Russian society after the seizure of power by the working class; be it formulated as the 'necessity of world revolution', the 'backwardness of Russia' or else, because such outlooks basically deny the very raison d'etre (reason) of the working-class revolution in Russia.

Secondly, the economic transformation of Russia is central to the socialist critique because the political and ideological degeneration of the revolution (such as the bureaucratization of the state structure, the distortion of the class orientation and practice of the party, difficulties and deviations in the domestic and international policies of the Soviet state, and the cultural and ethical retreats made after the initial progress of the revolution in these fields, etc.) can only be explained through examining that question. In my view the causes underlying these undesirable political and ideological (superstructural) changes can be correctly analyzed only if one examines the factors which prevented the revolutionary transformation of the economic relations in Russia. The conquest of political power and its consolidation by the working class is the first step in the proletarian revolution. But once the working class conquers this power, it must, as Engels emphasizes, use it to 'keep down its capitalist enemies and carry out that economic revolution without which the whole victory must end in a defeat and in a massacre of the working class like that after the Paris Commune.

As we can see, this is a simple and obvious principle in Marxism. Of course in a Marxism which has not been tampered with and falsified by non-proletarian classes, and whose lucid and vivid principles have not been encapsulated in the abstruse and meaningless elaborations of the non-proletarian Left. It is all too clear. If the workers cannot transform the economic base of society after the seizure of power, their revolution will not succeed, and will eventually lead to the massacre of the working class itself. Engels emphasizes that the course of events after the Paris Commune has vindicated this in practice. What happened in Russia has in fact been already said by Engels in the above sentence. The only difference is that this massacre of the class was not carried out by the troops of the enemy openly and at one definite date nor did it happen after the occupation of a particular city, but took place through a long and intricate process and at different fronts. Nevertheless, the outcome was still the same: the defeat and massacre of the working class. The scale of this failure was no less than that of the Paris Commune. What we are witnessing today is the result of the failure of the victorious proletariat in Russia to carry out the revolutionary transformation necessary in the economic foundation of society, and to accomplish its economic revolution. The political, ideological and administrative degeneration of the Russian revolution was the result of this failure. This is a crucial element in my outlook. This is the fundamental lesson of the October Revolution. This is the point of departure for a socialist critique of the Soviet experience.

I would like to add that I have a serious methodological difference with those outlooks which in examining the Soviet experience begin with the rise of the bureaucracy, the political and theoretical degeneration of the party and other observations related to the super-structural development of the society and revolution. In my opinion, these issues and observations are the effects of the interruption and degeneration of the Russian revolution and not the cause of it. These are part of the reality which must be explained and not the tools for its analysis. To explain the defeat of the revolution with these factors amounts to explaining the effects with the effects. It is just like trying to explain a disease with its symptoms and effects.

The Experience of Workers' Revolution in the Soviet Union (http://www.m-hekmat.com/en/2500en.html)

redstar2000

23rd November 2005, 14:36

Originally posted by Hekmat
Therefore, the discussion about the Russian revolution and its consequences can and should be focused on this question: why and under what circumstances did the conquest of political power by the working class not lead to the radical transformation of the capitalist foundation of society.

The obvious answer is that the Russian working class did not "conquer political power".

A political party mostly led by non-proletarian elements conquered political power in the name of the working class.

However sincere the motivations of the Bolsheviks might have been, the material fact of the matter is that they had to "play the role" of the revolutionary bourgeoisie...smashing all the accumulated rubble of aristocracy and domination by foreign capital.

Having played that role, what could be more "natural" than that the Bolsheviks would go on to develop into a "proto-bourgeoisie" and, as time passed, into a new capitalist ruling class?

It may be fairly asked if there was, in Russia of 1917 or, for that matter, in Paris of 1870, a real possibility of enduring working class political power?

I am inclined to doubt it. The workers of Petrograd, like the artisans of Paris, may have sincerely wanted a social order in which ordinary people would "run the show".

But could they do that given the "cultural" limitations of the time? (Limitations based on material backwardness, of course.)

Lenin himself explicitly deplored the "backwardness" of the Russian working class. Trotsky wanted to draft Russian railroad workers into the army...using the threat of brute force to get the trains running again.

Most Russian workers of that era did not see themselves as responsible for restoring order, resuming production, etc. They still looked to some outside source of authority to tell them "what to do next".

This is not a sign of a class "fit to rule".

In addition, there was the fact that Russian workers were semi-literate at best -- education was a class privilege in Czarist Russia.

And one cannot rule out the effects of life-long superstition (Russian Orthodox Church) on the "mind-set" of many Russian workers. Indeed, I think some Bolsheviks considered that superstition "useful" in mobilizing patriotic resistance to the White armies and their foreign sponsors.

In summary, I reject the notion that Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, etc. were "perfidious villains" who "stole the revolution" as an un-Marxist "explanation".

I think a straightforward and "unromantic" examination of the material conditions of Russia in 1917 explains better why things turned out the way they did.

It was 1789 there...with, if you like, Stalin as "Napoleon".

Much progress will have been made when we can finally put the questions of 20th century "communism" behind us.

Real proletarian revolution is in the future of a class that even now is beginning to develop the "fitness to rule" that such a revolutionary change requires.

There is still a considerable distance to travel...but the road is already clearer now. The whole idea of some middle-class group ruling "in the name of the working class" is becoming more and more discredited.

Progress has been made...and there's more to come.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

jambajuice

23rd November 2005, 15:54

"Fit to rule." That is a catch-22 problem. Today and in practice communist revolutions happening in places like the jungles of the Philipinnes, central Africa, and poor latin America. For these places to become 'fit' they have to become more wealthy, educated, and industrial. They would have to folllow the economic development of Europe and USA, before they become 'fit'. That is not a very good prospect.

Lamanov

23rd November 2005, 18:41

M-L, you made quite a leap - from Stalin to Hekmat. Should I be impressed? ;)

Originally posted by jambajuice
For these places to become 'fit' they have to become more wealthy, educated, and industrial. They would have to folllow the economic development of Europe and USA, before they become 'fit'. That is not a very good prospect.

Yeah, well, that's the hardcore reality. Either you are "fit" - or you're just not.

Prospects for proletarian revolution should not be made for Africa or Latin America before they are industrial and developed.

Led Zeppelin

23rd November 2005, 18:53

Woah, everyone is asking me if I have become a Trotskyist or a Orthodox Marxist, so let's set the record straight:

I no longer "uphold" Stalin, any idiot reading The State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm) can understand that what Stalin did was directly opposed to Lenin's outlines.

For example Lenin says:

"All officials, without exception, elected and subject to recall at any time, their salaries reduced to the level of ordinary "workmen's wages" — these simple and "self-evident" democratic measures, while completely uniting the interests of the workers and the majority of the peasants, at the same time serve as a bridge leading from capitalism to socialism. These measures concern the reorganization of the state, the purely political reorganization of society; but, of course, they acquire their full meaning and significance only in connection with the "expropriation of the expropriators" either bring accomplished or in preparation, i.e., with the transformation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social ownership." Lenin

The above was never even attempted to be put "in place" by Stalin, the logical conclusion must be that Stalin was not a Leninist.

However, that does not mean I am a Trotskyist or a Orthodox Marxist, if I recall correctly Hekmat held the view that the Russian revolution was in fact a workers revolution, and that the theory of the vanguard was not anti-Marxist. So Hekmat was in fact a Leninist, although I disagree with him creating the new term "worker-Communism", I prefer "back to Leninism".

ComradeOm

23rd November 2005, 19:33

This is the first I've seen of Hekmat's work and I'm impressed. I'll have to do a bit of reading from the website. A pity that so few of his works are avaliable in English.

Lamanov

23rd November 2005, 22:25

Mansoor Hekmat is a Left Communist - MIA Mansoor Hekmat (http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-mansoor/index.htm) - or at least that's how MIA has classified him.

This is from an interview with "Internationl". He talks about Lenin himself in a positive way but still judging by this we cannot characterize him as Leninist. There are many questions concerning the gap which divides Leninists and Left-Commies and we must see where Hekmat stands. I have no time right now to deal with that issue, but hopefully I'll get to it soon. For now...

Question: What about Lenin and Leninism? Does not Leninism need to be re-evaluated, and do you still consider yourself a Leninist?

Mansoor Hekmat: We are living in such a day and age that before we can answer such questions we have to first define our terms. If it is a question of a real assessment of Lenin, of the truth of his views and his practice from the viewpoint of Marxism, of his contribution to the revolutionary thought and practice of the working class, and so on, of course I am a Leninist. In my view Lenin was a genuine Marxist with an essentially correct understanding of this outlook, and a worthy leader of the socialist movement of the world working class.

But Leninism as a label which distinguished particular tendencies in the so-called communist movement has its own history. The initiators of the term under Stalin, or the groups which in later splits within the official mainstream of this communism emphasized the term Marxist-Leninist, exploited these designations - just like much other Marxist terminology - to express worldly, and in the main, non-socialist disputes and interests. These have been abuses of Lenin's prestige, and Leninism, as I understand it, is diametrically opposed to such 'Leninists'. Bourgeois analysts try to attribute the whole Soviet experience to Lenin, portraying it as the natural extension of the Leninist view. And this is more the fashion today. They choose to forget that at the time of the October revolution even the bourgeoisie itself conceded that Lenin was a free-thinking and egalitarian revolutionary. Leninism is represented neither in the ideas and actions of the ruling parties in the Soviet Union, China and Albania, nor in the Soviet social and political experience. The latter were built on a complete falsification of Lenin and his ideas. Lenin was an enthusiastic representative of equality, freedom and humanity. You can't, with any justification whatsoever, lay dictatorship, bureaucracy, national persecution, and food queues at Lenin's door.

red_che

24th November 2005, 03:52

Is this going to be another discussion on Stalin v. so-and-so?

Well, I would like to share my own view on the above-quoted text on Hermat.

I have here an excerpt of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party's (then led by Mao Zedong) letter to the CPSU when the great debate between CCP and CPSU is happening. The complete text is on this link: Mao (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/PRKR64.html)

"THE present article will discuss the familiar question of "peaceful transition". It has become familiar and has everybody's attention because Khrushchov raised it at the 20th Congress of the CPSU and rounded it into a complete system in the form of a programme at the 22nd Congress, where he pitted his revisionist views against the Marxist-Leninist views. The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU of July 14, 1963 once again struck up this old tune.

In the history of the international communist movement the betrayal of Marxism and of the proletariat by the revisionists has always manifested itself most sharply in their opposition to violent revolution and to the dictatorship of the proletariat and in their advocacy of peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism. This is likewise the case with Khrushchov's revisionism. On this question, Khrushchov is a disciple of Browder and Tito as well as of Bernstein and Kautsky.

Since the days of World War II, we have witnessed the emergence of Browderite revisionism, Titoite revisionism and the theory of structural reform. These varieties of revisionism are local phenomena in the international communist movement. But Khrushchov's revisionism, which has emerged and gained ascendancy in the leadership of the CPSU, constitutes a major question of overall significance for the international communist movement with a vital bearing on the success or failure of the entire revolutionary cause of the international proletariat.

For this reason, in the present article we are replying to the revisionists in more explicit terms than before."

Here, the CCP stressed that it was Kruschev and his gang in the CPSU who turned away from Marxism. And eventually, the collapse of USSR happened.

ComradeOm

24th November 2005, 10:08

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 23 2005, 10:30 PM
This is from an interview with "Internationl". He talks about Lenin himself in a positive way but still judging by this we cannot characterize him as Leninist. There are many questions concerning the gap which divides Leninists and Left-Commies and we must see where Hekmat stands. I have no time right now to deal with that issue, but hopefully I'll get to it soon. For now...

snip
I see nothing in that quote that distinguishes his postion from that of Lenin. Its clear however that he's not a Marxist-Leninist which is a completely different matter. The sooner the terms Leninist and Marxist-Leninst are seperated the better.

Led Zeppelin

24th November 2005, 10:19

I find that to be defeatist, did Lenin abandon the term "Marxist" while it was being revised by groups such as the Kautskyites and Bernsteinists?

No, instead he attacked those goups and cleansed the term Marxism, that is exactly what "we" must do today, cleanse the term Marxism-Leninism from Stalinism and Trotskyism.

ComradeOm

24th November 2005, 10:32

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 24 2005, 10:24 AM
I find that to be defeatist, did Lenin abandon the term "Marxist" while it was being revised by groups such as the Kautskyites and Bernsteinists?

No, instead he attacked those goups and cleansed the term Marxism, that is exactly what "we" must do today, cleanse the term Marxism-Leninism from Stalinism and Trotskyism.
Oh believe me that I would love to be able to openly use the term Marxist-Leninist as the phrase perfectly describes the way Leninst theory complements Marxism. I'm also tired of people divorcing Lenin's advances from the Marxist "canon".

But I don't see how the phrase can be "rescued". While the term Marxist had been in use long before the reformists got their hands on it, Marxist-Leninism was devised for the sole purpose of giving some creditably to Stalin and the bureaucratic Soviet leadership. It is inexorably tied to eighty years of Soviet rule.

Led Zeppelin

24th November 2005, 10:37

Actually, Marxism-Leninism was/is also used by "back to Leninism" parties, parties who oppose both Stalin and Trotsky.

The term Marxism-Leninism can be "rescued" very easily, the term "Stalinism" is used very often --including by the bourgeois-- to describe the USSR, only Stalinists refer to the USSR as Marxist-Leninsit nowadays, so it will not be a very hard task.

YKTMX

24th November 2005, 16:08

A political party mostly led by non-proletarian elements conquered political power in the name of the working class.

The leadership were certainly non-proletarian economically, but they were most certainly culturally and politically proletarian. They were all actual members of the real workers' struggle in Russia - that is, they wereof the movement. And obviously, the Bolsheviks had the vast majority of working class partisans, without whom the revolution would not have been possible. As I've said before, the predominance of petty-bourgeois intellectuals and non-workers in the leadership of parties is an inevitability arising from the divison of labour under capitalism. For Parties to be successful, they need full-timers, and these positions, for obvious reasons, favour the non-Labouring classes. As long as there are proper democratic structures in place, as there were initially in the BP, and the party rank and file remains mainly proletarian, this is not too great a problem. It certainly does not follow that because Lenin and Trotsky went to University, that the Russian Revolution would inevitably degenerate - that's ridicilous.

It may be fairly asked if there was, in Russia of 1917 or, for that matter, in Paris of 1870, a real possibility of enduring working class political power?

But the Bolsheviks never suggested that the Russian Revolution would establish socalism in Russia. It was clear that their aim was to spread the revolution to the more advanced economies of the world - this was explicit and 'non-negotiable'. It was not just Lenin and Trotsky who held this view, it was the view held by the whole party (even Stalin, at the time) and other socialists across the world. It is the failure of this hope which caused the degeneration.

And, of course, all this misses one important piece of historical context. The main political motivation behind the revolution was to extricate Russian workers from the madness and barbarity of the war. Russia lost more people than any other nation in that war, and it had inflicted social catastophe on the Russian people. The Bolsheviks ended Russian involvement in that war.

Also, it seems to me that some who criticise the October Revolution seem to forget to offer any alternative. I mean, what exactly should the Bolsheviks have done? Should they have said, 'well, OK, power is there to be taken, but we can't take it because it might degenerate years down the line'? Perhaps they should have waited for the White generals to take over, and see what they had in store.

Lamanov

24th November 2005, 16:16

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 24 2005, 10:24 AM
I find that to be defeatist, did Lenin abandon the term "Marxist" while it was being revised by groups such as the Kautskyites and Bernsteinists?
Actually, Lenin was not so free of that 2nd International revisionism. Au contraire, he bared most of the scars marxism gained from that revisionist era which are rooted within the Leninist theory-practice. Lenin is much closer to Kautsky than it really seems. The "groups" (revisionists) you are talking about were not just "groups" - they were the whole official Socialist International. Real brakeup with Kautsky and bourgeois politics of the failed Socialist International Lenin formulated no sooner than with his April Theses in 1917.

After all, in the period of Russian counter-revolution 1905-1912 Lenin gave up on the whole revolutionary prosepect. He himself said that he had become a defeatist. He did not expect another revolution in Russia within his lifetime. But when February 1917 came along with the Soviets and abdication - along came Leninism.

On the contrary, revolutionaries like Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and Anton Pannekoek were small "groups" resisting the revisionism right from the start. Lenin made a step towards them.

Of course - as soon as the revolutionary tool was used for the purpose of defeating the counter-revolution and seizure of power by the Bolsheviks - he stepped right back where he used to be.

We should drop Leninism not because of Trotskyism or Stalinism - we should drop it because of itslef.

redstar2000

24th November 2005, 17:57

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism+--> (Marxism-Leninism)I find that to be defeatist; did Lenin abandon the term "Marxist" while it was being revised by groups such as the Kautskyites and Bernsteinists?[/b]

Well, he did abandon the term "social democracy".

However, what you're really talking about here relates to the historical/theoretical question. Were Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, etc., a natural development of Lenin's own ideas or were Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, etc. "betrayers" of "real Leninism"?

In my opinion, all those guys were real Leninists who all tried to "develop Leninism" in accordance with their specific material circumstances.

I do not think that any of them are legitimately entitled to the "title" of "Marxist"...primarily because all of them were convinced of the "necessity" of substituting a "revolutionary elite" as "the motor force" of history itself. None of them ever trusted the masses to "get it right"...though Mao at least considered the possibility briefly.

Leninism is a theory of social change "from above"...and directly contradicts the basic Marxist thesis that the masses make history.

I don't think there's any way to "rescue Lenin" from that contradiction.

YouKnowTheyMurderedX
The leadership were certainly non-proletarian economically, but they were most certainly culturally and politically proletarian.

How could that be? When you grow up privileged, how can it be denied that such an upbringing deeply affects the way you look at things?

Even Marx himself expressed views, on occasion, that we today would consider reactionary...and even in his own time would have been regarded as "unenlightened" by at least a few of his contemporaries.

We are products of our historical circumstances...not "ideal men" who "stand above" our historical limitations.

For example, consider Trotsky's proposal to draft railroad workers into the army and impose the threat of brute force to get the Russian trains running again.

How could a real worker even "think of such a thing"? Can you imagine a real working class person coming up with an idea like that?

Does it not reek with the stench of the upper-class? The "lower orders" must be "made to work"..."for their own good".

Or consider the fact that most or all of the leading Bolsheviks were at least nominally atheist...something probably almost entirely unknown in the Russian proletariat of their era.

Atheism then was an "upper class" view...it depended on education -- a class privilege back then.

I don't think there's any reasonable way of considering the leading circles of the Bolshevik Party to be "proletarian" either culturally or politically. They were "more advanced" than the "backward proletariat" and they knew it.

What else was the source of their confidence in their own "fitness to rule"?

As I've said before, the predominance of petty-bourgeois intellectuals and non-workers in the leadership of parties is an inevitability arising from the division of labour under capitalism.

This is "boilerplate" Leninism...an "eternal truth" which will "always be the case" in class society.

Is it true?

Of course not. It takes a historical "snap-shot" of the Russian proletariat c.1917 and asserts that "this is how, even at its best, the working class will always be".

The "highest level" that the working class "can ever reach" is a conscious willingness to follow the leadership of the vanguard.

Like all anachronisms, this one just looks sillier and sillier as time passes. It hasn't quite become a complete joke -- like, for example, "the divine right of kings".

But it's gone a long way in that direction and will, I think, in a few more decades simply provoke derision and laughter whenever it is publicly spoken.

Which won't be very often. :lol:

But the Bolsheviks never suggested that the Russian Revolution would establish socialism in Russia.

Actually, I think there was a lot of ambiguity in Lenin's position and that of the Bolsheviks in general about this.

For example, in State and Revolution (published in the summer of 1917), Lenin almost promises the Russian people communism.

What we really have no way of knowing is what Bolshevik organizers were actually telling Russian workers "on the ground" about "socialism in the near future". An "academic" discussion of the "need for a European revolution" might not have been thought to be very "useful" in organizing workers for immediate struggles.

Did the Bolsheviks "really believe" that they were making a "socialist revolution"?

Who knows?

And, of course, all this misses one important piece of historical context. The main political motivation behind the revolution was to extricate Russian workers from the madness and barbarity of the war.

No question about it! History is rich in examples of ruling classes that suffered disastrous military defeats and "paid for them with their heads".

But you don't "need" a "socialist revolution" to put an end to a catastrophic war. Had the Russian capitalist class not been hopelessly compromised as servile dependents of western imperialists, they could easily have put together a "peace cabinet" and negotiated a treaty with imperial Germany...just as the Bolsheviks did subsequently.

Also, it seems to me that some who criticise the October Revolution seem to forget to offer any alternative.

The question that Lenin asked is not "what should have been done" but rather "what IS to be done?".

The past is fixed and we can no longer alter it to please us. We may "wish" that things had happened "differently" -- I wish that the Athenians had been victorious in Sicily and utterly smashed the Spartans in the great Peloponnesian War.

But I can't go back and give the Athenians my "good" advice. :(

What may be useful is a sober materialist analysis of the past...understanding why the participants in past struggles "thought the way they did" while also understanding "what really happened and why".

What is really useless is living in the past...something that is typical of Leninism in its period of decay.

How much time and energy I've seen expended on this board by people passionately "struggling" concerning past events over which they have no control whatsoever!

I wish that the Workers' Opposition had won a thumping majority at the 10th Party Congress in 1921...there's a "tiny" chance that things "might" have turned out a little "better" than they did.

But probably not. :(

The "Great October Revolution" was historically required to be a bourgeois revolution...and that's exactly how things turned out. No Marxist should be surprised by this...especially since Marx and Engels both explicitly predicted Russia's forthcoming "1789" back in the late 1870s.

Material reality prevails.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Lamanov

24th November 2005, 18:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 06:02 PM
I wish that the Workers' Opposition had won a thumping majority at the 10th Party Congress in 1921...there's a "tiny" chance that things "might" have turned out a little "better" than they did.

But probably not. :(
I agree.

Unfortunately, Lenin knew "what WAS to be DONE" with them too. :lol:

At the Congress, Lenin denounced the Labour Opposition as “anarcho-syndicalist middle-class ideology” and advocated its entire suppression. Schliapnikov, one of the most influential leaders of the Opposition, was referred to by Lenin as a “peeved Commissar” and was subsequently silenced by being made a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Madame Kollontay was told to hold her tongue or get out of the Party; her pamphlet setting forth the views of the Opposition was suppressed. Some of the lesser lights of the Labour Opposition were given a vacation in the Tcheka, and even Ryasanov, an old and tried Communist, was suppressed for six months from all union activities. (quoted E.Goldman)

Leninism is a theory of social change "from above"...and directly contradicts the basic Marxist thesis that the masses make history.

Exactly. Just a revolutionary layout of Kautsky himself.

YKTMX

25th November 2005, 13:40

How could that be? When you grow up privileged, how can it be denied that such an upbringing deeply affects the way you look at things?

Where did I suggest such a thing to be the case? I accept that Lenin and Trotsky were not economic proletarians, but to suggest that they deliberately placed themselves outside the proletarian cultural and political life is to deny fact. When the views of their contemporaries who had similar views to yours (The Slavs are all too stupid and imbued with mysticism to do anything), they argued that the Russian working class was able to change the world. They arrived at this conclusion from a concrete analysis of imperialism - an analysis that was proved wholly correct.

Now, of course they had ideas advanced of the majority of workers - all revolutionaries do, and it borders on tautology to point it out. The question is whose ideas do you allow to flourish? The backward, bourgeois ones, or Marxist, proletarian ones? Obviously, in this context, you're ambivalent on the matter.

How could a real worker even "think of such a thing"? Can you imagine a real working class person coming up with an idea like that?

I certainly can.

Does it not reek with the stench of the upper-class? The "lower orders" must be "made to work"..."for their own good".

It 'reeks' of good sense.

The "highest level" that the working class "can ever reach" is a conscious willingness to follow the leadership of the vanguard.

It's nothing to do with consciousness - it's to do with simple economic fact - the world as it is. If parties grow then they need full-timers to organise things, yes? Anyone who is working full-time for a party is not involed in capitalist production of things - therefore, not proletarian. It's not that hard to understand.

Actually, I think there was a lot of ambiguity in Lenin's position and that of the Bolsheviks in general about this.

Let's see if this is true:

"We rest all our hope on the possibility that our revolution will unleash the European revolution. If the insurrectionary peoples of Europe do not crush imperialism, then we will be crushed... Either the Russian revolution will raise the whirlwind of struggle in the west, or the capitalists of all countries will crush our revolution." (Trotsky, History of the Russian Revolution, volume 3, page 315)

Ambiguous? "We will be crushed" - I suppose that could be described as ambiguous :blink:

The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a proletarian government in one country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of socialism. The main task of socialism - the organisation of socialist production - remains ahead. Can this task be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible. To overthrow the bourgeoisie the efforts of one country are sufficient - the history of our revolution bears this out. For the final victory of Socialism, for the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are insufficient. For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary.

"Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution."

That's RedStar's erstwhile comrade, Stalin.

An "academic" discussion of the "need for a European revolution" might not have been thought to be very "useful" in organizing workers for immediate struggles.

It's interesting that you would assume that? Presumably the proles can't be motivated by all this 'internationalism' stuff? It's easy to see how you fell into voluntaristic Stalinism RS.

But you don't "need" a "socialist revolution" to put an end to a catastrophic war.

Yes - but you DID! The Russian masses had already got rid of the Tsar in one revolution AND STILL the Russian bourgeoisie wouldn't give it up.

Had the Russian capitalist class not been hopelessly compromised as servile dependents of western imperialists

We can all dream.

As with RS's obcession with the death of Leninism - afraid not. Sadly for him, but happily for us, we're doing quite fine thanks. The collapse of the old Stalinisms he's so sympathetic with has done us a world of good. October has been rescued.

Lamanov

25th November 2005, 17:45

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
...they argued that the Russian working class was able to change the world.

Nope - they argued that they can start the change. That's the main element in the theory of permanent revolution to which Lenin bared himself to accept in the may days of 1917 when he decided that seizure of power by the bolsheviks was the best way to go. That Stalin's quote from his Foundations of Leninism were used by Trotsky in his Critique of Socialism in One Country to show Stalin as a blind follower of Lenin and his political jumps from one theory to another. At the end, Stalin himself denounced that premise as he and Buharin constructed the new doctrine of Socialism in One Country.

They arrived at this conclusion from a concrete analysis of imperialism - an analysis that was proved wholly correct.

Riight. How was that proved exactly??

It's nothing to do with consciousness - it's to do with simple economic fact - the world as it is. If parties grow then they need full-timers to organise things, yes? Anyone who is working full-time for a party is not involed in capitalist production of things - therefore, not proletarian. It's not that hard to understand.

Party, any party for that matter, is simply a bourgeois tool - regardless of its name. It's obvious form your description of the party mechanism is that a party in general is pure bourgeois construction.

I certainly can.

It 'reeks' of good sense.

That's a bit authoritarian and it counters mass action, don't you think? :huh:

Let's see if this is true:
[...]
Ambiguous? "We will be crushed" - I suppose that could be described as ambiguous

You are using Trotsky's writings and his intelectual projections from 1930 to show us how Lenin was not ambiguous in 1917 ?? :lol:

I suggest a bit more objective methods.

redstar2000

25th November 2005, 19:01

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
I accept that Lenin and Trotsky were not economic proletarians, but to suggest that they deliberately placed themselves outside the proletarian cultural and political life is to deny fact.

It's not a matter of "deliberately placing oneself" in one culture or another. It's something that derives from one's entire childhood and adolescence. Were you taught that you were "superior" to others?

Or worse, were you taught that "ruling others" was your inheritance? It was what you were "born to do"...even if you found yourself doing it in circumstances far different from the visions of your parents.

I am not positing, of course, a simple relationship: "born & raised rich = bastard". There are many influences on one's development and not necessarily all of them are immediately derived from class position.

Nor can one say, of course, "born & raised poor = good person".

But what I am saying is that the class position in which you were born and raised has had a profound impact in shaping your view of the world...and that doesn't "go away" just because you've changed your political affiliations.

Stalin, for example, looked at the world differently from both Lenin and Trotsky. He was "born & raised poor" and had to struggle with the harsh realities of Russian class society in a way that Lenin and Trotsky only read about.

Historical experience makes a difference for all of us. To deny this is simply to enter a "wonderland" where people "can be whatever they want".

Surely you recognize the bourgeois origin of such a view of things.

When the views of their contemporaries who had similar views to yours (the Slavs are all too stupid and imbued with mysticism to do anything), they argued that the Russian working class was able to change the world.

I have never argued that any people were "too stupid" to play an active role in making history. That would not only be historically inaccurate but would be evidence of racism. However backward any particular people might be, history remains in their hands to make as best they can.

That is fundamental to the Marxist paradigm.

What kind of history they make does indeed depend on how "advanced" or how "backward" they might be -- which in turn depends ultimately on the technological development of their society's means of production.

Again...that's basic Marxism.

Simply asserting that the Russian working class "can change the world" is a tautology...even if the assertion dates from 1900 or so.

What Lenin and Trotsky proposed (at least implicitly) was that the forthcoming bourgeois revolution in Russia would "pass into" a "socialist revolution" -- that there "could be" no "capitalist epoch of production" in Russia.

Do you require a drawn-out explanation of why such a view is completely outside the Marxist paradigm?

Or are you satisfied with someone waving the "dialectical magic wand" which verbally transforms things into their opposites? :lol:

You know...turning a repudiation of basic Marxist materialism into a "great advance" in "Marxism".

They arrived at this conclusion from a concrete analysis of imperialism - an analysis that was proved wholly correct.

No, it was not proved "wholly correct" even in its own time...and now lies in ruins.

Lenin thought that the "era of imperialism" was a conclusive sign of the impending end of the capitalist system. He expected a wave of proletarian revolutions throughout Europe in the immediate future.

His "dialectical" crystal ball let him down. Capitalism proved far more resilient than he thought it would be.

So much so that when he was in power himself, he had no choice but to yield to the demands of material reality and begin the process of openly restoring capitalism in Russia itself. That's what the "New Economic Policy" really was!

It 'reeks' of good sense.

Thus you defend Trotsky's proposal to draft railroad workers into the army and compel them to labor at gunpoint.

I think perhaps that this says more about your own class upbringing than anything else.

My uncle was a railroad worker and, if he were still alive, would likely criticize you in terms much harsher than is the custom on this board. I leave the precise wording to your imagination. :lol:

It's nothing to do with consciousness - it's to do with simple economic fact - the world as it is. If parties grow then they need full-timers to organise things, yes? Anyone who is working full-time for a party is not involved in capitalist production of things - therefore, not proletarian. It's not that hard to understand.

Well, if they're "not proletarian" then what are they? And since you admit that they're "not proletarian", then on what grounds can you possibly assert that they "represent the class interests of the proletariat"?

Do you imagine that the ceremonial repetition of verbal formulas constitute evidence?

And those questions only begin to deal with the Leninist "can of worms". Early Marxists (of middle or even upper class origins) copied a lot of political forms from the bourgeoisie...it was what they had been trained to believe was "how one does politics".

The whole concept of a political party was an invention of the bourgeoisie...its main purpose was to "sort out" the differences between capitalists and remnants of the old aristocracy in a "peaceful" way.

Social democracy simply "took over" this bourgeois invention and tried to "use it" on behalf of the working class.

That didn't work out so well, did it?

Lenin simply adapted that concept to conditions in autocratic Russia...and that didn't turn out very good either. And Trotsky couldn't see past this bourgeois invention either; he spent the whole of his life in exile trying to build "Trotskyist" political parties.

Which is what you're doing, right?

Has it never occurred to you that the working class may well invent completely different forms of political organization? Or that conscious communists could have better things to do than mindlessly imitate bourgeois forms of organization?

That's RedStar's erstwhile comrade, Stalin.

In Trotskyist "political cosmology", anyone who conspicuously fails to worship at the Shrine of St. Leon is, perforce, "an agent of the devil"...a "Stalinist".

The Maoists have the same approach now and, during Stalin's lifetime, so did the real Stalinists.

The Leninists all had and still have their "cults of personality"...they just disagree about which personality is "truly holy" and which are "agents of the devil".

I wonder if anyone has done any actual research on the class origins of "cultism"? My guess is that it has middle class origins...but it would be useful to actually know.

As with RS's obsession with the death of Leninism - afraid not. Sadly for him, but happily for us, we're doing quite fine thanks. The collapse of the old Stalinisms he's so sympathetic with has done us a world of good. October has been rescued.

I see. That seat in the House of Commons is "so close" (you imagine!) that your buttocks can almost "feel it".

Very well, I wish you success in your efforts to climb the ladder of class society. The more Trotskyism is exposed as just another variant of social democracy, the sooner all decent proletarian elements will abandon it.

And you might even get a "knighthood". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Severian

25th November 2005, 20:50

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 23 2005, 05:56 AM
Therefore, the discussion about the Russian revolution and its consequences can and should be focused on this question: why and under what circumstances did the conquest of political power by the working class not lead to the radical transformation of the capitalist foundation of society.
So basically, this is yet another "state capitalist" analysis. Like those promoted by Maoists, ex-Maoists, some self-described Trotskyists, and others.

In reality, there was a radical transformation of the economic basis of society and of the social relations commonly called property.

This is fairly obvious and noticed by almost everyone on earth.

It's the reason the apparatchik regimes behaved differently than capitalist regimes the world over. Not always better, but their actions followed a distinct pattern. characteristics.. Not any characteristic of the political regime - which, with a capitalist economic foundation, would have been essentially fascist. But because of the different economic foundation they rested on.

Even today, with openly procapitalist regimes in power from east Germany to China, those social relations are difficult to reverse...with working people resisting every step of the way. Millions from east Germany to China are recognising in practice that these property relations are a step forward compared to capitalism...but many leftists are still incapable fo doing so.

To simply declare everything capitalist, and claim that these revolutions did "b]not lead[/b] to the radical transformation of the capitalist foundation of society" is simply to refuse to make necessary distinctions in the world. And to proceed from principles not facts.

That is not to say these economic relations were fully socialist, either. But the first steps on that road were taken.

Thus, right from the beginning, I stress the profound (and in my view, class) difference which exists between my outlook and those outlooks which base their analyses on the 'impossibility' of the economic transformation of the Russian society after the seizure of power by the working class; be it formulated as the 'necessity of world revolution', the 'backwardness of Russia' or else, because such outlooks basically deny the very raison d'etre (reason) of the working-class revolution in Russia.

Again, proceeding from principles not facts. These "outlooks" are declared wrong on principle, not shown false in relation to reality.

And false on its own terms: it ignores that the primary reason for making the Russian Revolution was to advance the world revolution.

As with everything communists do! Lenin always started with the world.

It also ignores a secondary "raison d'etre" for the October Revolution: the bourgeois-democratic tasks of the revolution could not be thoroughly carried through without the workers and peasants taking power. And after taking power, the workers in alliance with the poor peasants had no choice but to move against capitalist property relations.

In my view the causes underlying these undesirable political and ideological (superstructural) changes can be correctly analyzed only if one examines the factors which prevented the revolutionary transformation of the economic relations in Russia.

Why yes. But the material factors which limited the transformation of economic relations were analyzed long ago in the Revolution Betrayed. In the section quoted, Hekmat doesn't explain what factors he thinks were involved. But since he starts by dismissing the material circumstances - not a terribly Marxist approach - I'm not real optimistic about his chances of coming up with a good explanation.

Paradox

25th November 2005, 22:04

It also ignores a secondary "raison d'etre" for the October Revolution: the bourgeois-democratic tasks of the revolution could not be thoroughly carried through without the workers and peasants taking power. And after taking power, the workers in alliance with the poor peasants had no choice but to move against capitalist property relations.

Could you elaborate? From what I've read, the bolshevik agrarian policy of land distribution was something forced on them by necessity because of the peasants. If they hadn't had done it, they would have had to wage civil war on the peasantry, which would have been the end of the revolution. This basically shows the bourgeois character of the October Revolution. I don't really see how they could effectively move against capitalist property relations while making compromises which allow them.

That is not to say these economic relations were fully socialist, either. But the first steps on that road were taken.

I'm not saying steps weren't taken, I'm just saying how could they fight capitalist relations as they were simultaneously creating capitalist relations? That was the aim of the NEP, was it not? State capitalism in order to bring about the conditions that would allow a transition to actual Socialism?

YKTMX

26th November 2005, 00:11

He was "born & raised poor" and had to struggle with the harsh realities of Russian class society in a way that Lenin and Trotsky only read about.

Oh lord, give me a break. Lenin and Trotsky had to struggle with the 'harsh realities' of Tsarism every day of their lives. Lenin's brother was, as I'm sure you know, murdered by the Tsarist forces - not to mention the endless threats on their lives as a result of their revolutionary activity. The idea that Lenin and Trotsky were two hermetically sealed intellectuals stuck in offices 'devising plans' to rule Russia is the worst kind of bourgeois nonsense.

Historical experience makes a difference for all of us. To deny this is simply to enter a "wonderland" where people "can be whatever they want".

Surely you recognize the bourgeois origin of such a view of things.

Yes, I do - you know how? Because two rather bourgeois German intellectuals called Marx and Engels helped me,a simple man, understand it.

Do you require a drawn-out explanation of why such a view is completely outside the Marxist paradigm?

As has been explained a million times, the Imperialist system and the globalization of capital mean that revolutions in backward countries can fulfil the tasks of the democratic and proletarian revolutions as long as they are supported by the efforts of the more advanced economies. I mean, if you don't accept this now, you're obviously never going to.

think perhaps that this says more about your own class upbringing than anything else

Single mum in a tower block? Maybe - but you're a better judge than me.

then on what grounds can you possibly assert that they "represent the class interests of the proletariat"?

Their ideas represent the interests of the proletariat - the proletarians represent themselves.

Has it never occurred to you that the working class may well invent completely different forms of political organization?

Absolutely - I look forward to that day.

In Trotskyist "political cosmology", anyone who conspicuously fails to worship at the Shrine of St. Leon is, perforce, "an agent of the devil"...a "Stalinist".

Oh, come on Red, don't be bashful. We all know you flirted with it in the past, and even now, the thought of the old 'planned economy' still raises a smile, eh?

they just disagree about which personality is "truly holy" and which are "agents of the devil".

Actually, I've repeatedly said on this board that it wouldn't mattered who had 'taken over' in the Soviet Union.

redstar2000

26th November 2005, 02:54

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Oh lord, give me a break.

You'll have better luck with "Him" than with me. :lol:

Lenin and Trotsky had to struggle with the 'harsh realities' of Tsarism every day of their lives.

No, that does not appear to be the case. Lenin spent most of his time prior to his return to revolutionary Russia in the relative comfort of European exile.

As apparently did Trotsky as well. I thought this was interesting...

REVOLUTIONARY SILHOUETTES: LEV DAVIDOVICH TROTSKY (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lunachar/works/silhouet/trotsky.htm)

There are lots of interesting comparisons between Lenin and Trotsky by a revolutionary who knew and worked closely with both of them.

Single mum in a tower block? Maybe - but you're a better judge than me.

Evidently not as good as I sometimes think I am. :P

But what is the explanation for your support of Trotsky's proposition to draft railroad workers into the army?

Would you approve of such a measure if it was applied to you? Or your mum?

How could you??? :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

YKTMX

26th November 2005, 11:02

Would you approve of such a measure if it was applied to you? Or your mum?

How could you???

:lol: Trust me, there wouldn't be a problem.

Led Zeppelin

26th November 2005, 11:19

However, what you're really talking about here relates to the historical/theoretical question. Were Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, etc., a natural development of Lenin's own ideas or were Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, etc. "betrayers" of "real Leninism"?

In my opinion, all those guys were real Leninists who all tried to "develop Leninism" in accordance with their specific material circumstances.

That goes against factual evidence:

"All officials, without exception, elected and subject to recall at any time, their salaries reduced to the level of ordinary "workmen's wages" — these simple and "self-evident" democratic measures, while completely uniting the interests of the workers and the majority of the peasants, at the same time serve as a bridge leading from capitalism to socialism. These measures concern the reorganization of the state, the purely political reorganization of society; but, of course, they acquire their full meaning and significance only in connection with the "expropriation of the expropriators" either bring accomplished or in preparation, i.e., with the transformation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social ownership." Lenin, The State and Revolution

Now, are you saying that Mao, Stalin, Trotsky etc. worked to implement that?

If you are then you are denying historical fact, of course this could be true about Trotsky though, since he never got to "be in power", so we'll never know what he would have done, but I doubt he would have been any different from Stalin, Mao etc.

Amusing Scrotum

26th November 2005, 14:01

Now, are you saying that Mao, Stalin, Trotsky etc. worked to implement that?

Are you saying Lenin worked to implement that?

By the way, last time I checked what someone writes is not "factual evidence" of what they did.

Severian

27th November 2005, 07:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 04:09 PM

It also ignores a secondary "raison d'etre" for the October Revolution: the bourgeois-democratic tasks of the revolution could not be thoroughly carried through without the workers and peasants taking power. And after taking power, the workers in alliance with the poor peasants had no choice but to move against capitalist property relations.

Could you elaborate? From what I've read, the bolshevik agrarian policy of land distribution was something forced on them by necessity because of the peasants. If they hadn't had done it, they would have had to wage civil war on the peasantry, which would have been the end of the revolution. This basically shows the bourgeois character of the October Revolution.
Yes. In its initial period the October Revolution was a bourgeois-democratic revolution, as Lenin acknowledged. And correctly so. It's necessary to first finish the bourgeois-democratic revolution before moving on to the socialist revolution.

I'm not saying steps weren't taken, I'm just saying how could they fight capitalist relations as they were simultaneously creating capitalist relations?

They couldn't....simultaneously. There were different periods or phases of the revolution.

That was the aim of the NEP, was it not? State capitalism in order to bring about the conditions that would allow a transition to actual Socialism?

One, you're conflating two different things: the initial land distribution policy and the later NEP. May I point out that the two were separated by the "war communism" period of extreme state-ization and militarization of the economy...almost the farthest from a market economy anyone's ever gotten.

Two, the NEP was a necessary retreat back towards capitalism...but the capitalist and state-capitalist elements of trade and industry never became that large. In particular, state capitalism properly referred to the concessions to foreign capital in the form of joint ventures with the state...in fact there were never all that many of those. The terms offered by the Bolsheviks were just not that attractive to most foreign capitalists.

Led Zeppelin

27th November 2005, 08:14

Are you saying Lenin worked to implement that?

Yes, too bad he didn't live long enough to really "do it".

By the way, last time I checked what someone writes is not "factual evidence" of what they did.

Oh, so do you have evidence that Lenin "changed his mind" later on? If not, then we logically conclude that he didn't "change his mind", since there is no evidence to prove it.

Lamanov

27th November 2005, 12:45

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 27 2005, 08:19 AM
Oh, so do you have evidence that Lenin "changed his mind" later on? If not, then we logically conclude that he didn't "change his mind", since there is no evidence to prove it.
I doesn't really matter what Lenin had "in his mind" at the time. What matters is what he did and did not do. He certanly did not work on the implementation of his thoughts from the State and Revolution. We are sure of that.

Led Zeppelin

27th November 2005, 17:21

"These measures concern the reorganization of the state, the purely political reorganization of society; but, of course, they acquire their full meaning and significance only in connection with the "expropriation of the expropriators" either bring accomplished or in preparation, i.e., with the transformation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social ownership." Lenin, The State and Revolution

Nope, he did exactly what he wrote, you seemed to have missed the last part.

Lamanov

27th November 2005, 18:01

I've missed nothing.

Expropriation "happened", but "self-evident" democracy didn't. On the contrary, we saw centralized militarization of society through measures of the central govenment (Peoples' commissars).

Led Zeppelin

27th November 2005, 18:05

Expropriation "happened".

Expropriation and the transformation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social ownership did not happen.

To say it did is just silly, especially with the NEP being in force.

Lamanov

27th November 2005, 18:14

Ehhh... :blink: nationalization of industry, communication and banks did happen. That's why it was a revolution.

Led Zeppelin

27th November 2005, 18:18

Ehh... Russia wasn't industrialized and didn't have a majority proletariat, so it couldn't be Socialist, it didn't have the material conditions.

Lamanov

27th November 2005, 18:32

:lol: Oh, no shit? I do realize that and agree with you, you know.

They did have capitalist industry, communications and banks, even though it was very small. About 16% of Russia was indistrial proletariat. Very insufficient for the socialist transformation of society. So you're right here.

But expropriation of industry and its socialization were not caused by a proletarian direct action, but through central government nationalization. That's why Russia built state-capitalism, and not socialism. So your argument stands, but not against me.

My argument that Lenin did not work by his State and Revolution also stands, and now supported by your argument.

Paradox

27th November 2005, 19:44

Yes. In its initial period the October Revolution was a bourgeois-democratic revolution, as Lenin acknowledged. And correctly so. It's necessary to first finish the bourgeois-democratic revolution before moving on to the socialist revolution.

So when was this "initial" bourgeois-democratic stage over? Where was the socialist stage, and how long did it last?

May I point out that the two were separated by the "war communism" period of extreme state-ization and militarization of the economy...almost the farthest from a market economy anyone's ever gotten.

"War communism," as one could guess from its name, was heavily centralized, as you say in this quote. Perhaps it was "far from a market economy," but from what I've read the people in many cases refused to cooperate; the peasants were refusing to produce food, workers were leaving cities for the countryside, and black markets arose.

Two, the NEP was a necessary retreat back towards capitalism

Back? From what? In "war communism" markets were illegal, but there were black markets, and the people were uncooperative. "War communism" was a failure economically, was it not? And that's why the NEP was put in place? The capitalist relations were there, though they were illegal, so the NEP was meant to ease the economy back with some capitalist/state capitalist compromises.

but the capitalist and state-capitalist elements of trade and industry never became that large. In particular, state capitalism properly referred to the concessions to foreign capital in the form of joint ventures with the state...in fact there were never all that many of those. The terms offered by the Bolsheviks were just not that attractive to most foreign capitalists.

Again, from what I've read, though the NEP helped the economy recover, it did little to industrialize Russia. Agriculture improved a lot, but industry? Not really, no. The factories had to raise the prices of their goods, so the peasants had to produce more so as to afford those goods, and so agricultural prices then dropped, so the peasants withheld their surpluses, waiting for better prices, and selling to the "nepmen." And it wasn't until Stalin that significant (and rapid) industrialization took place.

Severian

27th November 2005, 22:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 01:49 PM

Yes. In its initial period the October Revolution was a bourgeois-democratic revolution, as Lenin acknowledged. And correctly so. It's necessary to first finish the bourgeois-democratic revolution before moving on to the socialist revolution.

So when was this "initial" bourgeois-democratic stage over?
Lenin argued the transition occurred in November 1918 - when the poor peasant's committees were formed. This marked a shift in the revolution in the countryside - from an anti-feudal movement of the whole peasantry, including the rural bourgeoisie, to an anti-capitalist movement of the poor peasants against the rural bourgeoisie.

Most industry was nationalized before that - "war communism" is usually dated to June 1918. But since most of the population was rural, Lenin was probably right to date the transition from the opening of the socialist revolution in the countryside.

Where was the socialist stage, and how long did it last?

The revolution remained socialist in direction for as long as it lasted. I'd say that's til the counterrevolution of 1923-28.

Some of the anticapitalist economic changes made by the revolution remain in place today.

Back? From what? In "war communism" markets were illegal, but there were black markets, and the people were uncooperative. "War communism" was a failure economically, was it not? And that's why the NEP was put in place? The capitalist relations were there, though they were illegal, so the NEP was meant to ease the economy back with some capitalist/state capitalist compromises.

Yes, that's why the retreat was necessary. I'm not sure what your point is - that because there was a black market, there was no socialist revolution? Bizarre, if so.

Again, from what I've read, though the NEP helped the economy recover, it did little to industrialize Russia. Agriculture improved a lot, but industry? Not really, no. The factories had to raise the prices of their goods, so the peasants had to produce more so as to afford those goods, and so agricultural prices then dropped, so the peasants withheld their surpluses, waiting for better prices, and selling to the "nepmen." And it wasn't until Stalin that significant (and rapid) industrialization took place.

Again, I'm not sure what your point is. The question is not volume of production, but the social relations governing it, and whether those were capitalist...or something else, a change in the direction of socialism.

Incidentally, you've referred to the "intent" to use state capitalism as part of NEP, Lenin's statements about state capitalism and so forth.

Lenin meant something different by that phrase than it means today. The modern "state capitalist" viewpoint argues that the state is capitalist, therefore the nationalized property remains capitalist. Lenin, in contrast, emphasized that the state was proletarian, and by state capitalism meant private capital directed by the proletarian state.

So it is trickery and word-games for some people to use Lenin's statements about "state capitalism" in support of the modern "state capitalism" analysis.

That is why very many people are misled by the term state capitalism. To avoid this we must remember the fundamental thing that state capitalism in the form we have here is not dealt with in any theory, or in any books, for the simple reason that all the usual concepts connected with this term are associated with bourgeois rule in capitalist society. Our society is one which has left the rails of capitalism, but has not yot got on to new rails. The state in this society is not ruled by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat. We refuse to understand that when we say “state” we mean ourselves, the proletariat, the vanguard of the working class. State capitalism is capitalism which we shall be able to restrain, and the limits of which we shall be able to fix. This state capitalism is connected with the state, and the state is the workers, the advanced section of the workers, the vanguard. We are the state.
As Lenin said in 1922. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm)

Severian

27th November 2005, 23:30

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 23 2005, 05:56 AM
Therefore, the discussion about the Russian revolution and its consequences can and should be focused on this question: why and under what circumstances did the conquest of political power by the working class not lead to the radical transformation of the capitalist foundation of society.
I'm going to look at the political consequences of this view - basically, of the view that the USSR remained capitalist, economically. As seen in practice in the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq.

The Russian Revolution carried through the bourgeois revolution more throroughly than any before in world history. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/14.htm) If it did so without "the radical transformation of the capitalist foundation of society" then you have to conclude that bourgeois-democratic problems can still be solved without a socialist revolution.

This applies to other modern proletarian revolutions as well: form China to Cuba, they've swept away imperialist domination and feudal rubbish with unparalleled thoroughness. Those who deny these are proletarian revolutions....sometimes use them as examples of how these things can be done under capitalism.

This is part of the political basis of the "state cap" British SWP's love affair with Islamic fundamentalism: as YTMX once put it, "how can anything anti-imperialist be reactionary"? On this board, Redstar represents the same approach, and also holds the view that the USSR, PRC, etc were solely bourgeois revolutions. Both tirelessly look for some capitalist force to carry through anti-imperialist revolutions and develop capitalism in the Third World. Without success; the era of bourgeois-led revolutions is over.

The same political approach is can be seen in the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq, though without the fawning over rightist fundamentalism. I'm not attempting to fully assess that organization here, just show an tendency in the development of its politics which follows from the analysis laid out by Hekmat.

Let’s turn a dark scenario into a bright future - WCPI statement (http://www.wpiraq.net/english/AZAR010503.htm)
May Day statement WCPI (http://www.wpiraq.net/english/may_day_rebwar.html)

In these and other statements the WCPI contrasts the "dark scenario" of occupation, "political Islam", and other anti-democratic forces, to a democratic, secular "bright future." They say "All freedom-loving people, all humanitarian, left and progressive organizations are duty bound to help end the tragedy in Iraq and work to change the unfolding dark scenario put into action by the US with the participation of the reactionary forces in Iraq" and call on workers to "Build a progressive, secular, non-nationalist state based on the direct will of the masses of people: a state that guarantees security, freedom and prosperity for all the population of the country."

The support to democracy and secularism and opposition to the occupation are all good of course; but what's missing is a perspective of working people fighting to take power...a open recognition that only a workers' and farmers' government can accomplish these democratic goals.

The ultimate revolutionary goal is sometimes proclaimed in an abstract way: "The only hope for a free, just and egalitarian Iraq is Worker-communism." But the guide to day-to-day action is the hope of alliance with all democratic, secular, and allegedly progressive bourgeois forces...

This issue has led to splits in the Worker-Communist Parties of Iran and Iraq (http://www.socialismnow.org/html/declaration191004.htm) The more left faction has pointed out the same thing I have about the political direction the WCP of Iraq is heading in.

Paradox

28th November 2005, 00:04

I'm not sure what your point is - that because there was a black market, there was no socialist revolution? Bizarre, if so.

No, I'm not saying there was no socialist revolution. I was asking what they were returning to capitalism from. The revolution being socialist in direction and an actual stage of socialism are two different things.

Incidentally, you've referred to the "intent" to use state capitalism as part of NEP, Lenin's statements about state capitalism and so forth.

Lenin meant something different by that phrase than it means today. The modern "state capitalist" viewpoint argues that the state is capitalist, therefore the nationalized property remains capitalist. Lenin, in contrast, emphasized that the state was proletarian, and by state capitalism meant private capital directed by the proletarian state.

Yes. The workers' state. Nonetheless, it was capitalistic, though a "workers' state" oversaw it.

Lenin:

Our society is one which has left the rails of capitalism, but has not yot got on to new rails.

Soooo... it's a mix of sorts?

The state in this society is not ruled by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat. We refuse to understand that when we say “state” we mean ourselves, the proletariat, the vanguard of the working class. State capitalism is capitalism which we shall be able to restrain, and the limits of which we shall be able to fix. This state capitalism is connected with the state, and the state is the workers, the advanced section of the workers, the vanguard. We are the state.

So it's "restricted" capitalism controlled by the "workers' state." The point I'm trying to make is that, though the revolution may have been socialist in direction, socialism was never actually established as some claim, and that state capitalism (Lenin's definition or otherwise) was being used to help bring about the conditions that allow for a transition to socialism. It would follow, from this, that socialism never actually existed in the Russia.

Severian

28th November 2005, 01:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 06:09 PM
No, I'm not saying there was no socialist revolution. I was asking what they were returning to capitalism from. The revolution being socialist in direction and an actual stage of socialism are two different things.
A retreat towards capitalism, not a return to capitalism. Present-day Cuba is a similar example.

The USSR was a workers' state, under "war communism" or NEP. I don't really think it's necessary to give a different label to every possible degree of capitalist influence. IMO it's better to concentrate on the direction of motion, keeping in mind that these are all transitional stages and that life is more complex than theory.

Our society is one which has left the rails of capitalism, but has not yot got on to new rails.

Soooo... it's a mix of sorts?

Yes. A workers' state is a transitonal stage. Lenin further pointed out all kinds of deformations and concrete conditions....not that anyone should ever expect to see any kind of ideal type in reality.

So it's "restricted" capitalism controlled by the "workers' state." The point I'm trying to make is that, though the revolution may have been socialist in direction, socialism was never actually established as some claim, and that state capitalism (Lenin's definition or otherwise) was being used to help bring about the conditions that allow for a transition to socialism. It would follow, from this, that socialism never actually existed in the Russia.

Sure. What I object to in Hekmat's article is the idea the USSR never left the rails of capitalism.