jakeanomy
22nd March 2006, 18:33
Like I said, everyone's going to hate me for this, and I expect to get a few negative responses. That said, What I've tried to do here is pin down the fundamental problem facing Marxist thought. I've made a serious attempt here, and I'd like any serious responses or insights any of you may have.
Also, I've removed references for the quotes to prevent the kids from cheating in school. These quotes are commonly referenced, and anyone who's read Marx Lenin and Trotsky will recognize them. This is old school. :)
Both Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin agree that in order for a society to transition from capitalism to socialism, a professional state is required to facilitate that transition. They are both aware, however, that while necessary, the bureaucracy is an answer that seems to invite only more questions. Moreover, Trotsky believes that the less a nations economy is developed, the more necessary and problematic a bureaucracy becomes. This is the predicament that Trotsky feels is most pressing for any nation adapting Marxist theory to reality.
If you remember that the task of socialism is to create a classless society based upon solidarity and harmonious satisfaction of all needs, there is not yet, in this fundamental sense, a hint of socialism in the Soviet Union. This is the dilemma facing Trotsky and Lenin. But how should the Soviets approach this problem? How can they work to build solidarity and to satisfy harmoniously the needs of all citizens? The Soviets, according to Lenin and Trotsky, are particularly daunted by this task. They believe, as an extension of Marxs work, that there are certain economic preconditions to the socialist transition. The material premise of communism, Trotsky says, should be so high that a peoples resources [exist] in continual abundance. By this, he means that a nations economy must be so efficient, so advanced, that all of its people have the freedom to work as they chose. With this freedom, with each individuals basic needs provided for, all of society will be able to live as any well-off family does. Everyone will be able to enjoy what Romans referred to as otium, the freedom to spend time bettering oneself, motivated primarily by education, habit and social opinion. This concept is not Trotskys brainchild either, but an extension of Marxs work. Lenin quotes Marx as saying that only when the springs of wealth are in total abundance can society proclaim, From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
According to Marxist theory, only bourgeois capitalism can create effectively the economic conditions, the technique and science, necessary for such abundance of resources. Lenin believes, however, that communism cannot instantly replace a capitalist economy. He believes that the first stage of communism must be a transitional stage, one that maintains the basic capitalist economic structure, albeit without bourgeois ownership of industry. Trotsky takes this to mean that even after a proletarian revolution, and even if an economy had within the sum total of is productive capacity sufficient resources to provide for all of its peoples basic needs, a new socialist state can not automatically remove the [individuals] struggle for existence. He believes that, as a practical matter, the quality and quantity of workers work must still dictate their pay in the short run.
While Trotsky and Lenin aim to create a society where each worker is paid according to his needs, they do not forget that the initial post-revolutionary economy is still capitalistic by nature: it has yet to be reformed. Lenin sees the first necessary step towards true socialism as the creation of a dualistic state, one whose long-term objective is socialism but whose short-term methods must be capitalistic. As Lenin says, It follows that under [the first stage of] communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois right, but even the bourgeois state, without the bourgeoisie. By this, he means that the new revolutionary state must assume the role of the bourgeoisie. The state must function in much the same way as the old bourgeois/capitalist state, serving to operate as well as protect the old capitalist industries. The key difference, however, is that those industries are not owned by individual bourgeois capitalists, but by the new proletarian state. Lenin sees this transfer of economic power as the only realistic way for society to be delivered out of the womb of capitalism, and into socialism.
Ideally, according to Marxist theory, state power should begin to wither away as soon as the proletariat seizes power from the capitalists. This is desirable because the state, as Marxists define the term, is an instrument through which one class is able to exploit and oppress another. Such authority is necessary in the initial stage of communism of course, as the proletariat is still wrestling with elements of the old system (the capitalist infrastructure and the remaining capitalists themselves). Marxists, however, wish to eliminate class differences altogether. According to Trotsky, the power of the soviet state under Stalin has not even begun to wither, but has grown stronger instead. A revolution intended to liberate the Russian people from state-sponsored oppression, has instead fashioned new forms of domination. For instance, whereas an armed citizenry should have replaced the professional army, it has only grown more powerful; removed from society. Meanwhile the populace, the armed bearers of the dictatorship, has been prohibited from possessing any weapons whatsoever. Trotsky wrestles with this dilemma, trying to explain what he calls a crying divergence between program and reality.
As Trotsky sees it, the less developed an economy, the more power the state must exert in order to effect the transition to socialism. He believes that a poor population, one that is perhaps not truly a developed proletariat, is both physically and psychologically removed from the bourgeois industry. Since a key precondition to socialism, a general abundance of resources, does not exist, the state must impel workers pitilessly in order to drive the economy forward. As Trotsky says, it is perfectly obvious that the poorer the [revolutionary] society the sterner and more naked the bourgeois law must be. Furthermore, this iron necessity to create and elevate a bourgeois-like ruling minority has the effect of [strangling] the workers movement, just as it does under full-blown capitalist rule. This is so because the workers themselves are not in control of the states industry, as they would under developed socialism. Since workers are generally disinclined to defend property that is not their own, the schism between the proletarian masses and state becomes quite extensive. According to Trotsky, the inability of the Soviet state to wither away following the proletarian revolution is at once a symptom and a cause of Russian economic and political backwardness.
This is Trotskys dilemma. Since Russia was not a highly developed capitalist society at the outbreak of revolution, but rather the weakest link in the chain of capitalism, the new Russian state was forced to act. It needed to assume the role of the only known power capable of developing the economic efficiency socialism requires: the bourgeoisie. Moreover, the weaker the Russian economy, the more ruthless the new bourgeois state needed to be in order to hasten development. This State-sponsored bourgeois brutality is precisely what communist revolution is intended to alleviate. It is also, according to Trotsky however, the necessary effect of introducing socialism into a country that is not yet ready to host it.
As I see it, Trotskys analysis of the nature of bureaucracy in Russia is spot on. He fails, however, to draw some necessary conclusions from his analysis. Trotsky must make a choice. He must either continue to moderate, deal with, or fight the ever-expanding Soviet bureaucracy, in hopes that some day it will wither away as Marx predicts, or he can advocate capitalism. He can work within Marxs model, pursuing further economic and political development until capitalism reaches its zenith, until socialists can developed a system that honestly proclaims, From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Trotsky, or other Marxists, may find that the state is much less oppressive under a bona fide bourgeois-capitalist regime, as compared to Stalinist one.
Furthermore, at the risk becoming overly academic in my analysis, the economic preconditions to socialism are perhaps too utopian, though Trotsky insists they are not. When asserting that an economy must be developed enough to support socialism, the word enough must but assigned a certain definition. To say that enough simply means that every individuals needs can be provided for, what is meant by the word need? For the better part of human history, mankind has had his basic needs provided for: food, shelter, and clothing. In many tribal societies, amongst peoples indigenous to Africa or the Americas for instance, men and women often work for only a few hours each day, spending the remainder of their time at leisure. This level of subsistence is most likely not, however, the level that Marxists expect under capitalism. So how developed must an economy be in order to be developed enough? Would a Roman aristocrats life be sufficient? He undoubtedly spent a good part of his day at leisure, bettering himself through art, literature, and sport, but his lifespan was intolerably short by todays standards. So what about modern America? The United States of the early twentieth century was still underdeveloped according Trotsky, unable to provide everyone with as much as he needs. Is America developed enough today? Will it be in fifty or a hundred years?
I simply wish to illustrate the subjectivity of being advanced enough for socialism to work. In light of this ambiguous distinction between economic readiness and unreadiness, it seems likely that some level of bureaucracy will always be necessary. An economy will never advance to a state where no one will have to work, where all of humanitys needs will be automatically provided for. Since every individual will always be, to a certain degree, tasked with the business of ensuring his personal existence, there will always be a need for some cajoling force; be it bourgeois capitalism or a bourgeois socialist state.
This is where I feel I must leap beyond logic. The key to progressing towards true communism, it seems to me, must lie in a single places. We as the vanguard must decide what the needs of humanity are. What proportion of our wealth should we spend on subsistence, health care, education, new technological research, recreation, et cetera? In a sense, I am asking: How do we define communism? If we are to learn anything from the history of the twentieth century, if we are to move beyond the fundamental theories of more than a hundred years ago, we must then acknowledge and adapt to the limits and constraints of socialism as a transitional stage. These limits held back the Soviet Union, continue to constrict development in Cuba, and have been tossed aside carelessly in China. The Chinese government knew that some form level of capitalism must be adopted in order for the economy to grow, but they have obviously gone too far in some respects while simultaneously repressing their citizens violently and denying them basic human rights.
I do not offer any solutions. I have hopefully, however, clarified the fundamental problem facing us today. If we are to be successful we must learn to be pragmatic. And pragmatism means realizing the limits of communism, of moving beyond the utopian and working towards a viable solution. The Soviets ignored this reality. The Chinese have realized it, but have forgotten their roots. We must find the balance.
Also, I've removed references for the quotes to prevent the kids from cheating in school. These quotes are commonly referenced, and anyone who's read Marx Lenin and Trotsky will recognize them. This is old school. :)
Both Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin agree that in order for a society to transition from capitalism to socialism, a professional state is required to facilitate that transition. They are both aware, however, that while necessary, the bureaucracy is an answer that seems to invite only more questions. Moreover, Trotsky believes that the less a nations economy is developed, the more necessary and problematic a bureaucracy becomes. This is the predicament that Trotsky feels is most pressing for any nation adapting Marxist theory to reality.
If you remember that the task of socialism is to create a classless society based upon solidarity and harmonious satisfaction of all needs, there is not yet, in this fundamental sense, a hint of socialism in the Soviet Union. This is the dilemma facing Trotsky and Lenin. But how should the Soviets approach this problem? How can they work to build solidarity and to satisfy harmoniously the needs of all citizens? The Soviets, according to Lenin and Trotsky, are particularly daunted by this task. They believe, as an extension of Marxs work, that there are certain economic preconditions to the socialist transition. The material premise of communism, Trotsky says, should be so high that a peoples resources [exist] in continual abundance. By this, he means that a nations economy must be so efficient, so advanced, that all of its people have the freedom to work as they chose. With this freedom, with each individuals basic needs provided for, all of society will be able to live as any well-off family does. Everyone will be able to enjoy what Romans referred to as otium, the freedom to spend time bettering oneself, motivated primarily by education, habit and social opinion. This concept is not Trotskys brainchild either, but an extension of Marxs work. Lenin quotes Marx as saying that only when the springs of wealth are in total abundance can society proclaim, From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
According to Marxist theory, only bourgeois capitalism can create effectively the economic conditions, the technique and science, necessary for such abundance of resources. Lenin believes, however, that communism cannot instantly replace a capitalist economy. He believes that the first stage of communism must be a transitional stage, one that maintains the basic capitalist economic structure, albeit without bourgeois ownership of industry. Trotsky takes this to mean that even after a proletarian revolution, and even if an economy had within the sum total of is productive capacity sufficient resources to provide for all of its peoples basic needs, a new socialist state can not automatically remove the [individuals] struggle for existence. He believes that, as a practical matter, the quality and quantity of workers work must still dictate their pay in the short run.
While Trotsky and Lenin aim to create a society where each worker is paid according to his needs, they do not forget that the initial post-revolutionary economy is still capitalistic by nature: it has yet to be reformed. Lenin sees the first necessary step towards true socialism as the creation of a dualistic state, one whose long-term objective is socialism but whose short-term methods must be capitalistic. As Lenin says, It follows that under [the first stage of] communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois right, but even the bourgeois state, without the bourgeoisie. By this, he means that the new revolutionary state must assume the role of the bourgeoisie. The state must function in much the same way as the old bourgeois/capitalist state, serving to operate as well as protect the old capitalist industries. The key difference, however, is that those industries are not owned by individual bourgeois capitalists, but by the new proletarian state. Lenin sees this transfer of economic power as the only realistic way for society to be delivered out of the womb of capitalism, and into socialism.
Ideally, according to Marxist theory, state power should begin to wither away as soon as the proletariat seizes power from the capitalists. This is desirable because the state, as Marxists define the term, is an instrument through which one class is able to exploit and oppress another. Such authority is necessary in the initial stage of communism of course, as the proletariat is still wrestling with elements of the old system (the capitalist infrastructure and the remaining capitalists themselves). Marxists, however, wish to eliminate class differences altogether. According to Trotsky, the power of the soviet state under Stalin has not even begun to wither, but has grown stronger instead. A revolution intended to liberate the Russian people from state-sponsored oppression, has instead fashioned new forms of domination. For instance, whereas an armed citizenry should have replaced the professional army, it has only grown more powerful; removed from society. Meanwhile the populace, the armed bearers of the dictatorship, has been prohibited from possessing any weapons whatsoever. Trotsky wrestles with this dilemma, trying to explain what he calls a crying divergence between program and reality.
As Trotsky sees it, the less developed an economy, the more power the state must exert in order to effect the transition to socialism. He believes that a poor population, one that is perhaps not truly a developed proletariat, is both physically and psychologically removed from the bourgeois industry. Since a key precondition to socialism, a general abundance of resources, does not exist, the state must impel workers pitilessly in order to drive the economy forward. As Trotsky says, it is perfectly obvious that the poorer the [revolutionary] society the sterner and more naked the bourgeois law must be. Furthermore, this iron necessity to create and elevate a bourgeois-like ruling minority has the effect of [strangling] the workers movement, just as it does under full-blown capitalist rule. This is so because the workers themselves are not in control of the states industry, as they would under developed socialism. Since workers are generally disinclined to defend property that is not their own, the schism between the proletarian masses and state becomes quite extensive. According to Trotsky, the inability of the Soviet state to wither away following the proletarian revolution is at once a symptom and a cause of Russian economic and political backwardness.
This is Trotskys dilemma. Since Russia was not a highly developed capitalist society at the outbreak of revolution, but rather the weakest link in the chain of capitalism, the new Russian state was forced to act. It needed to assume the role of the only known power capable of developing the economic efficiency socialism requires: the bourgeoisie. Moreover, the weaker the Russian economy, the more ruthless the new bourgeois state needed to be in order to hasten development. This State-sponsored bourgeois brutality is precisely what communist revolution is intended to alleviate. It is also, according to Trotsky however, the necessary effect of introducing socialism into a country that is not yet ready to host it.
As I see it, Trotskys analysis of the nature of bureaucracy in Russia is spot on. He fails, however, to draw some necessary conclusions from his analysis. Trotsky must make a choice. He must either continue to moderate, deal with, or fight the ever-expanding Soviet bureaucracy, in hopes that some day it will wither away as Marx predicts, or he can advocate capitalism. He can work within Marxs model, pursuing further economic and political development until capitalism reaches its zenith, until socialists can developed a system that honestly proclaims, From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Trotsky, or other Marxists, may find that the state is much less oppressive under a bona fide bourgeois-capitalist regime, as compared to Stalinist one.
Furthermore, at the risk becoming overly academic in my analysis, the economic preconditions to socialism are perhaps too utopian, though Trotsky insists they are not. When asserting that an economy must be developed enough to support socialism, the word enough must but assigned a certain definition. To say that enough simply means that every individuals needs can be provided for, what is meant by the word need? For the better part of human history, mankind has had his basic needs provided for: food, shelter, and clothing. In many tribal societies, amongst peoples indigenous to Africa or the Americas for instance, men and women often work for only a few hours each day, spending the remainder of their time at leisure. This level of subsistence is most likely not, however, the level that Marxists expect under capitalism. So how developed must an economy be in order to be developed enough? Would a Roman aristocrats life be sufficient? He undoubtedly spent a good part of his day at leisure, bettering himself through art, literature, and sport, but his lifespan was intolerably short by todays standards. So what about modern America? The United States of the early twentieth century was still underdeveloped according Trotsky, unable to provide everyone with as much as he needs. Is America developed enough today? Will it be in fifty or a hundred years?
I simply wish to illustrate the subjectivity of being advanced enough for socialism to work. In light of this ambiguous distinction between economic readiness and unreadiness, it seems likely that some level of bureaucracy will always be necessary. An economy will never advance to a state where no one will have to work, where all of humanitys needs will be automatically provided for. Since every individual will always be, to a certain degree, tasked with the business of ensuring his personal existence, there will always be a need for some cajoling force; be it bourgeois capitalism or a bourgeois socialist state.
This is where I feel I must leap beyond logic. The key to progressing towards true communism, it seems to me, must lie in a single places. We as the vanguard must decide what the needs of humanity are. What proportion of our wealth should we spend on subsistence, health care, education, new technological research, recreation, et cetera? In a sense, I am asking: How do we define communism? If we are to learn anything from the history of the twentieth century, if we are to move beyond the fundamental theories of more than a hundred years ago, we must then acknowledge and adapt to the limits and constraints of socialism as a transitional stage. These limits held back the Soviet Union, continue to constrict development in Cuba, and have been tossed aside carelessly in China. The Chinese government knew that some form level of capitalism must be adopted in order for the economy to grow, but they have obviously gone too far in some respects while simultaneously repressing their citizens violently and denying them basic human rights.
I do not offer any solutions. I have hopefully, however, clarified the fundamental problem facing us today. If we are to be successful we must learn to be pragmatic. And pragmatism means realizing the limits of communism, of moving beyond the utopian and working towards a viable solution. The Soviets ignored this reality. The Chinese have realized it, but have forgotten their roots. We must find the balance.