my problems with the theory of state capitalism [Archive]

black magick hustla

17th April 2007, 04:37

Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 17, 2007 01:56 am--> (ComradeRed @ April 17, 2007 01:56 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 04:38 pm
However, the thing is that countries like Japan differed in their economic model with "socialist" countries in the sense that economy was driven by market values rather than by what was needed inside the nation Stalinist industralization was not driven by external market prices, it was driven by the resources needed by the soviet population at that time.Well, I am not really familiar with early 20th/late 19th century Japan's economic history, and I would really question whether it was state capitalist or not.

Regardless, you still have Italy and Germany to fall back on as examples.

The "socialist" nations were a little different because they didn't have this export/import market. They didn't really have the option to have one with the West, so they kind of had one among themselves.

D

This is a fundamental difference, and this is why state-bourgeosie in places like Japan and early russians were much more richer than soviet bureacrats. But "being rich" doesn't change the bureaucrat's class status.

If you live off of the labor-power of the workers alone, you're bourgeois.

Another difference is that socialist bureacrats were never that rich to other type of capitalists. If those bureacrats would be driven entirely by profit as normal capitalists, they would certainly would have been a hell of a lot richer. But as I've said, being rich is irrelevant to your relation to the means of production and labor!
[/b]

One flaw with this problem you have is that: just because Germany and Italy exported goods and imported goods does not equate to there being a "freer" market.

It is not about it being a "freer market", it is about commodity production being influenced by the market, rather than what is needed by society.

Hm.

The state still ran the show for domestic industry in Italy and Germany.

Yes, and the state also ran the economy in Ancient Sumeria and in the Incan Empire.

oes that really change the fact that there was wage-labor and surplus value? No. So it doesn't really change the fact that this was capitalism.
You are right, and I didn't deny that there was an opressed proletariat.

However, wouldn't it be more sensical to establish a different mode of production for past "socialist" societies, because they differed in some fundamental ways to the other "freer market" societies?

Even the socialist revolutions werent carreed on by bourgeois cadre, they were lead by petty bourgeois cadre. In the capitalist revolution, it was the merchants who actually funded those revolutions.

Arguably, the bureaucrats were petit bourgeoisie because they also "worked"; however, their "work" would be no different than any other capitalist's: try and get the capital to be as effective as possible.

And this is where I disagree and where my problem with state capitalism is.

They werent trying to get capital as effective as possible, because if they had tried doing this, they would have been much more richer. You could argue they were benevolent to much of the proletariat...

However, a benevolent bourgeois is still a bourgeois, but still, you dont see that kind of nature in the bourgeosie as a class.

[Quote[
And that is what determines what class you are, not wealth![Quote]

Yes, and noblemen also lived from peasants' labor.

Living from someone's labor is not enough to make someone bourgeois. A big difference between noble landowners and the bourgeois is that landowners didn't produce commodities to sell, and thus buy more capital in order to have more profits. They just had many people working for them and building their shit etc.

Still, you may be right though, but what bothers me is that the soviet bureacrats behaved very differently in the way that they weren't as profit driven as capitalists in other countries.

hmmmm

I still need to think about this.

Psy

17th April 2007, 05:46

Think of the USSR as a giant bureaucrat corporation with no capitalist at the head, the managers not found of the idea of turning power to the workers focus on maintaining (and sometime expanding) their privileged positions.

Khrushchev was trying to make the USSR focus on the accumulation of capital (he told the west the USSR would bury the west in productivity) that led to Brezhnev that represented ruling class of the USSR that wanted stability, over time that stability was taken away when the profits for the USSR fell and the ruling class nothing to lose with fully embracing capitalism.

I think the best way to describe the USSR is a co-op capitalist state where the ruling class shared the the profit. As for workers, during the 60's the workers in the west saw gains so was the west becoming less capitalist?

ComradeRed

17th April 2007, 06:20

Darg this is a long post.

Originally posted by Faceless+April 16, 2007 06:18 pm--> (Faceless @ April 16, 2007 06:18 pm)The bureaucrats did not own the means of production.[/b]Well if you say so :rolleyes:

They could not do as they wished with the means of production, and their children could not inherit their advantages. No, it was bequeathed to other party bureaucrats.

Indeed, the restoration of capitalism was part driven by the very desire for bureaucrats to be able to pass down their privilege. If a bureaucrat wanted to use their administrative powers in the way that a capitalist is able to, a new bureaucrat would most likely be appointed in his place. The bureaucrat's handbook (I kid you not) says otherwise, quoted below.

This relation to the means of production is completely different from the relation of the capitalist to the means of production. Do you have any statistics to back this assertion up?

In the soviet union we have no internal market, no external market, but a planned economy. These "wages" that workers received for their "labour-power" were not based upon the laws of value as Marx described it. The "wages" that people were given were based on what then?

How do you explain the Base Wage Differential (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64235) then?

As Neumann pointed out: "The preponderance of the performance wage brings the problem of wage differentials into the forefront of social policy. It is essential that this problem be understood not as an economic question but as the crucial political problem of mass control ... Wage differentiation is the very essence of National Socialist wage policy ... the wage policy is consciously aimed at mass manipulation." (Emphasis added; See F. Neumann, Behemoth, London 1942, pp.353.)

The fact is that the Soviet Union had 100% employment virtually. There was no industrial reserve army. Capitalism could not survive under such circumstances, as the reserve army is the only thing capable of driving down wages in the anarchy of capitalism. Hey hey, guess what? The Soviet Union [i]didn't survive.

But the law of value is not realised, and for all intents and purposes we have a socialist economy in which the political power of the proletariat has been usurped by bureaucrats. This is called the deformed worker's state. Well, gee, the political environment couldn't be a reflection of the economy.

Is that why Soviet Economics textbooks started including things like “One-man management the most important principle of the organisation of socialist economy” (See L. Gintzburg and E. Pashukanis, Course of Soviet Economic Law (Russian), Moscow 1935, Vol.1, p.8.)?

They were just retaining power in the hands of one man...the proletariat?

Hell, look at the plant manuals (how cute is that, a manual on how to run a factory!): "Each plant has a leader – the plant manager – endowed with the full power of decision, hence fully responsible for everything.” (See E.L. Granovski and B.L. Markus (eds.) The Economics of Socialist Industry (Russian), Moscow 1940, p.579.)

The workers really do run the show! Oh, no wait, this sounds little more than having a class of petit bourgeoisie!

But they can't give inheritance. As though that were the determinant factor between socialism and capitalism: inheritance!

Sure, you can keep exploitation, effective ownership of property, wage-slavery...but not inheritance.

Only then have you "gone too far".

Marmot

Marmot
It is not about it being a "freer market", it is about commodity production being influenced by the market, rather than what is needed by society.

Hm. Well then Nazi Germany wasn't capitalist because of it's four year plans apparently.

Yes, and the state also ran the economy in Ancient Sumeria and in the Incan Empire. But surplus value is unique only to the capitalist mode of production, which is why state run

However, wouldn't it be more sensical to establish a different mode of production for past "socialist" societies, because they differed in some fundamental ways to the other "freer market" societies? Perhaps, but the various modes of production aren't supposed to be rigid, impermeable epochs.

Even then, what would it be? :huh:

Given that the Soviet Union industrialized a feudal nation, and essentially delivered a capitalist state (I'm referring here to "modern" Russia), it had something in common with capitalism.

Take into account that how this was done was very much similar to how Marx described the Division of Labour and Manufacture (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch14.htm).

And this is where I disagree and where my problem with state capitalism is.

They werent trying to get capital as effective as possible, because if they had tried doing this, they would have been much more richer. You could argue they were benevolent to much of the proletariat...

However, a benevolent bourgeois is still a bourgeois, but still, you dont see that kind of nature in the bourgeosie as a class. Well, "kind nature" didn't really exist for the party bureaucrats.

Considering that "Any change in wages ... may be brought about only by government decision." (See Professionalnye Soiuzy (monthly organ of the trade unions), Moscow 1947, Nos.2.)

Yes, and noblemen also lived from peasants' labor.

Living from someone's labor is not enough to make someone bourgeois. A big difference between noble landowners and the bourgeois is that landowners didn't produce commodities to sell, and thus buy more capital in order to have more profits. They just had many people working for them and building their shit etc. But the feudal aristocracy lived by owning laborers and having them work agricultural jobs on large tracts of land.

On the other hand, capitalists purchase labor-power and have workers produce commodities.

It's really more of a matter of living off of labor-power as opposed to labor (a distinction made at least in Marxist economics).

Further, from the looks of the data from the Soviet Union, it does appear that they were concerned with the accumulation of capital more than the well being of a proletariat.

Just look at the following plans for the accumulation of capital:

Investment of capital
(thousand million current roubles)
Total - In industry

1923/4-1927/8 26.5 4.4
1928/9-1932 52.5 24.8
1933-37 114.7 58.6
1938-1942 (Plan) 192.0 111.9
1946-1950 (Plan) 250.3 (See I Plan, Vol.I, p.20; V.P. Diachenko (ed.) Finance and Credit in USSR (Russian), Moscow 1938, p.184; IV Plan, p.9; National Economy of USSR (Russian), Moscow 1948, Vol.II, p.185)

Oddly enough, the productivity of the worker was going up as the average number of "food baskets" was going down:

Productivity of labour Number of “food baskets”
per average monthly wages
Year index index
1913 100 100
1928 106.0 151.4
1936 331.9 64.9 But this second statistic is just a fancy aside.

If there are wage-laborers, there must be capitalists (petit bourgeois or bourgeois). Who else are they selling their wage-labor to?

And labor-power is considered a commodity when two conditions are fulfilled: 1) when the laborer has no other means to survive other than selling his labor, and 2) the wage-laborer is free to sell his labor-power (as opposed to feudal systems where the laborer was owned and he had no choice).

Considering that the party bureaucrat did not render any productive labor, that would disqualify him from the first condition of selling his labor-power as a commodity.

The manufacturing (and later, industrial) worker had no choice but sell his labor-power in order to survive. He was also free to work in whatever sector he wished, though ultimately it's akin to working at any company that's owned by the same corporation.

Regardless, he had to sell his labor-power to live, but he was "free" to decide how to expend his labor-power. Those are the conditions for labor-power to be considered a commodity.

rouchambeau

17th April 2007, 13:05

You recognise that it is the relation to the means of production that is important in determining class, and yet, you still think Russia was state capitalist in the Stalinist period. The bureaucrats did not own the means of production
It's irrelevant whom owns the means of production. If production involves wage-labor, exchange, surplus value, etc. then the form of production is capitalist.

Die Neue Zeit

20th April 2007, 07:19

ComradeRed, your naysaying sounds too much like Desai's Marx's Revenge, no?

ComradeRed

20th April 2007, 07:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 10:19 pm
ComradeRed, your naysaying sounds too much like Desai's Marx's Revenge, no?
Actually, this is the first I'm hearing about it. But from what I google searched, the reviews seem to indicate that it's more of a bourgeois economist adopting the tools of Marxism to apologize for capitalism rather than anything serious.

I'm just assessing this situation with a critical mindset using empirical data.

You know what they say: the truth hurts.

Guest1

20th April 2007, 18:07

It's easy to throw history in the dustbin and talk about capitalism in the Soviet Union, but it's an abdication of our responsibility to treat the history of the last great period of revolutions seriously.

In your opinion, are unions capitalist corporations? The bureaucrats, parasites as they are, live off the productive labour of their members. The unions are even legally registered as corporate entities.

Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, there's more to this than meets the eye? Would a union that has been hijacked by a parasitic caste and attacks all the democratic structures within count as a degenerated organ of working class power? Or is it bourgeois?

In the Soviet Union, there wasn't something that could be colour-coded simply, here this makes them capitalist, oh and that over... that makes them state-capitalist! This was a living society, with an actual balance of powers within. Limits of the social structure were stretched, to the point were it took on certain elements of the old world. The right wing took over in a workers' state, and degenerated it. But overthrowing the very economic foundations of that state did not come easily, and was not on the agenda until very late on.

Skimming off the top is not the definition of capitalism, corruption exists in a workers' state where workers are on the retreat and parasites fill the void. Where inheritance comes in, is when skimming off the top is transformed to an actual class dynamic of ownership. The issue of petty-bourgeois state managers vs. bourgeois owners of the means of production, which you paper over, is an essential one. The existence of the petty-bourgeoisie in Russia is not denied, and its vast power in the role that it took as a bureaucratic caste is a symptom of, and contributed to, the degeneration of the workers' state. Socialism was never reached in the Soviet Union, but it was a society that was clearly in a state of flux which had broken with capital, but had not solidified its gains.

The petty-bourgeoisie took the perspective of power, of transforming themselves into a full-blown owner class, but only after 50 years of their defacto rule in the state and constant hammering at the working class to ensure no one would challenge them when they did it.

But until then, no capitalist class existed.

Nothing Human Is Alien

21st April 2007, 00:11

If the bureaucrats in the Soviet Union constituted a new ruling class, then they were the first ruling class in the history of earth to give up their power peacefully.

What were past "socialist" experiments then?

Attempts to construct and maintain socialism under very poor conditions.

Rawthentic

21st April 2007, 00:57

If the bureaucrats in the Soviet Union constituted a new ruling class, then they were the first ruling class in the history of earth to give up their power peacefully.

So they gave power to the workers after they stole it in the first place?

If one-man management and all of the "experts" and "advisors" are not petty-bourgeois and ruling over the working class, then I don't know what it is then.

LuÃs Henrique

21st April 2007, 01:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:57 pm

If the bureaucrats in the Soviet Union constituted a new ruling class, then they were the first ruling class in the history of earth to give up their power peacefully.

So they gave power to the workers after they stole it in the first place?
It seems they gave up power to the bourgeoisie... and also that they merged into it.

Luís Henrique

Rawthentic

21st April 2007, 01:26

It seems they gave up power to the bourgeoisie... and also that they merged into it.
Well, taking a class outlook, I'm not sure that that can be contested.

But the bourgeoisie? I mean, take Stalin for example, he was the petty-bourgeoisie in flesh and blood!

Stalinists gripe about him being so glorious because he fought the Kulaks, but they fail to understand that since the Kulaks were part of the rural petty-bourgeoisie, Stalin's class interests sided with the urban petty-bourgeoisie.

ComradeRed

21st April 2007, 02:15

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+April 20, 2007 09:07 am--> (Che y Marijuana @ April 20, 2007 09:07 am)It's easy to throw history in the dustbin and talk about capitalism in the Soviet Union, but it's an abdication of our responsibility to treat the history of the last great period of revolutions seriously.[/b]
Everyone here I think is taking this last period of bourgeois revolutions in feudal nations very seriously.

In your opinion, are unions capitalist corporations? The bureaucrats, parasites as they are, live off the productive labour of their members. The unions are even legally registered as corporate entities. The unions of the soviet system were actually the inspiration for modern corporate practices, curiously enough.

I would consider a union more like a corporate state than a corporation.

Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, there's more to this than meets the eye? Would a union that has been hijacked by a parasitic caste and attacks all the democratic structures within count as a degenerated organ of working class power? Or is it bourgeois?

In the Soviet Union, there wasn't something that could be colour-coded simply, here this makes them capitalist, oh and that over... that makes them state-capitalist! This was a living society, with an actual balance of powers within. Limits of the social structure were stretched, to the point were it took on certain elements of the old world. The right wing took over in a workers' state, and degenerated it. But overthrowing the very economic foundations of that state did not come easily, and was not on the agenda until very late on. This supposes that the union was socialist to begin with.

Were the material conditions for Russia at the time of the revolution really suitable for socialism?

Marx himself notes that the conditions necessary are:
This "alienation" [caused by private property] can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an "intolerable" power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity "propertyless", and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the "propertyless" mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones.

Without this:

(1) communism could only exist as a local event;

(2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and

(3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Karl Marx, The German Ideology (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a4) --emphasis added

The empirical data out on the economic power of Tsarist Russia in the early 20th century seems to indicate that it is far from having an advanced productive power.

From An Economic History of Twentieth-Century Europe by Ivan T. Berend:
Originally posted by Berend+ pg. 34--> (Berend @ pg. 34)Russia, a great European power and military giant, preserved its traditional agriculture (Liashchenko, 1952). It more or less stagnated in the 1890s, and output even decreased on a per capita basis. Overtaxed and exploited by the state, it provided a rather weak and fragile domestic market. [...] [Russian] GDP levels were still rather low in 1913, at only 71%, 60%, and 40% of the Hungarian, Italian, and average Western European levels, respectively. Russian modernization was thus a partial failure, but at least industrialization had begun.[/b] --emphasis added

Originally posted by Berend+ pg. 34--> (Berend @ pg. 34)Poland, Finland, and the Baltic counties [...] began to industrialize in response to export opportunities presented by Russian markets. Measured by per capita output, these countries also achieved growth rates twice as high as their Russian counterparts and were able to build agrarian-industrial economies.[/b] --emphasis added

Originally posted by [email protected] pg. 38
The gap between the West on the one hand and Southern and Eastern Europe on the other remained wide and, regarding Southern Europe, even broadened. Industrialization had more or less failed in this region. Agricultural employment continued to dominate, at 75-80% of the active population in Russia and the Balkans, and 55-70% in Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, and Spain. Industrial employment remained below one-fifth of total employment, and industrial output accounted for less than one quarter of GDP by 1910 (Berend and Ranki, 1982: 159). --emphasis added

Originally posted by [email protected] pg. 39
Most the the countries of Southern and Eastern Europe, though they tried to adopt the Western model of laissez-faire policies, were increasingly unable to generate successful industrialization. --emphasis added

From these excerpts alone, it appears that Tsarist Russia didn't have the proper material conditions to bring about a worker's revolution (particularly because 80% of the population was peasantry).

Why would there be a worker's revolution in a feudal nation? :huh: There has never been a coherent answer to this question. Marx seemed to point out what follows from feudalism is capitalism.
Marx
[b]Although the formation of capital and the capitalist mode of production rest essentially on both the ending of the feudal mode of production and the expropriation of the peasants, handicraftsmen, and in general on the ending of the mode of production which rests on the private property of the direct producer in his conditions of production; although the capitalist mode of production, once it is introduced, develops in the same proportion as that form of private property is done away with, along with the mode of production founded on it, hence to the degree that those direct producers are expropriated in the name of the concentration of capital (centralisation); although that process of expropriation which is later repeated systematically in the clearing of estates, in part introduces; as an act of violence, the capitalist mode of production, both the theory of the capitalist mode of production (political economy, the philosophy of law, etc.) and the capitalist himself in his conception of the matter like to confuse the capitalist's form of property and appropriation, which rests on the appropriation of alien labour in its progress and, essentially, on the expropriation of the direct producer, with the above-mentioned mode of production which on the contrary presupposes the private property of the direct producer in his conditions of production — a presupposition under which the capitalist mode of production in agriculture and manufacture, etc., would be impossible — and therefore also like to present every attack on the capitalist form of appropriation as an attack on the other kind of property, the property that has been worked for, indeed an attack on all property. Of course they always experience great difficulty in presenting the expropriation of the mass of working people from their property as the vital condition for property which rests on labour. slavery for the members of the family, who are used and exploited to the full by the head of the family.] The general legal conception, from Locke to Ricardo, is therefore that of petty-bourgeois property, while the relations of production they actually describe belong to the capitalist mode of production. What makes this possible is the relation of buyer and seller, which remains the same formally in both forms. With all these writers one finds the following duality:

1) economically they oppose private property resting on labour, and show the advantages of the expropriation of the mass [of workers] and the capitalist mode of production;
2) but ideologically and legally the ideology of private property resting on labour is transferred without further ado to property resting on the expropriation of the direct producer. --emphasis is Marx's, from Marx's 1864 Manuscripts on the Results of the Direct Production Process. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/notes.htm)

Or perhaps maybe just maybe, based on the figures on Tsarist Russia and the empirically observed outcome of the various revolutions bringing the Bolsheviks to power, it looks like it's a capitalist state because it is a capitalist state.

[email protected]
Skimming off the top is not the definition of capitalism, corruption exists in a workers' state where workers are on the retreat and parasites fill the void. Where inheritance comes in, is when skimming off the top is transformed to an actual class dynamic of ownership. The issue of petty-bourgeois state managers vs. bourgeois owners of the means of production, which you paper over, is an essential one. The existence of the petty-bourgeoisie in Russia is not denied, and its vast power in the role that it took as a bureaucratic caste is a symptom of, and contributed to, the degeneration of the workers' state. Socialism was never reached in the Soviet Union, but it was a society that was clearly in a state of flux which had broken with capital, but had not solidified its gains. Perhaps, but considering 80% of the population was peasantry, that would prevent capitalist production from occurring as Marx noted:
Marx[/i]
Capitalist production only then really begins, as we have already seen, when each individual capital employs simultaneously a comparatively large number of labourers; when consequently the labour-process is carried on on an extensive scale and yields, relatively, large quantities of products. (Das Kapital, Chapter 13 (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch13.htm)). Supposing that the other 20% of the population of pre-Soviet Russia was entirely industrial proletariat, it wouldn't be a capitalist mode of production.

The petty-bourgeoisie took the perspective of power, of transforming themselves into a full-blown owner class, but only after 50 years of their defacto rule in the state and constant hammering at the working class to ensure no one would challenge them when they did it. Well, making all party members simply petit bourgeoisie is a bit unjustified. They were at the very least petit bourgeois, the higher ranking party members were bourgeois.

Just looking over a few statistics here: in 1923, a mere 29% of the factory directors were in the party. Whereas in 1925 (you know, after that small victory for Stalin), 73.7% of the members of the members of the managing boards of trusts, 81.5% of those on the boards of syndicates, and 95% of the directors of large enterprises were party members(!). (See A.S. Bubnov and others, The All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) (Russian), Moscow-Leningrad 1931, page 626)

Wait, it gets better! In 1936 this figure raises to somewhere in between 97.5% to 99.1% of these chaps were in the party, and for the chiefs of trusts this figure is 100% (See USSR, The Land of Socialism (Russian), Moscow 1936, p.94.)

These aren't petit bourgeois positions that I'm telling you about, these are bourgeois positions.

They did their jobs phenomenally well for a young capitalist state, fastest job done in history.

Nothing Human Is Alien

21st April 2007, 03:00

Again then, they were a bourgeoisie that was the first bourgeoisie in the history of capitalism to give up their power peacefully.

They simply gave up their state without a fight, against all historical precedent.

Why would there be a worker's revolution in a feudal nation? There has never been a coherent answer to this question.

It was semi-feudal, for one..

Then there's thing about imperialism, which Lenin pointed out (in his most significant contribution to communist theory).

Marx seemed to point out what follows from feudalism is capitalism.

He wasn't as mechanical in his application of historical materialism as you are.. He saw for the possibility of revolutions happening in less developed countries, but said they must spread to the more developed countries to be successful: "Any upheaval in economic relations in any country of the European continent, in the whole European continent without England, is a storm in a teacup. Industrial and commercial relations within each nation are governed by its intercourse with other nations, and depend on its relations with the world market. But the world market is dominated by England and England is dominated by the bourgeoisie." (Marx, 1849)

OneBrickOneVoice

21st April 2007, 03:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:26 am

It seems they gave up power to the bourgeoisie... and also that they merged into it.
Well, taking a class outlook, I'm not sure that that can be contested.

But the bourgeoisie? I mean, take Stalin for example, he was the petty-bourgeoisie in flesh and blood!

Stalinists gripe about him being so glorious because he fought the Kulaks, but they fail to understand that since the Kulaks were part of the rural petty-bourgeoisie, Stalin's class interests sided with the urban petty-bourgeoisie.
lol you obviously don't know much about Stalin, because he grew up in an extremely poor family. His class interests were not with the petty-bourgeiosie or the peasantry, but only with the workers. In fact that was one error he made. He didn't see the peasantry as a class which had a revolutionary potential, which is why he sent urban workers to collective the countryside

bcbm

21st April 2007, 03:21

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 20, 2007 08:00 pm
Again then, they were a bourgeoisie that was the first bourgeoisie in the history of capitalism to give up their power peacefully.

They simply gave up their state without a fight, against all historical precedent.
Are you referring to 89-90?

Nothing Human Is Alien

21st April 2007, 03:44

I'm refering to 1991, when the so-called 'new ruling class' "gave up their state without a fight, against all historical precedent."

bcbm

21st April 2007, 04:51

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 20, 2007 08:44 pm
I'm refering to 1991, when the so-called 'new ruling class' "gave up their state without a fight, against all historical precedent."
Uh... the coup?

ComradeRed

21st April 2007, 04:59

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+April 20, 2007 06:00 pm--> (CompañeroDeLibertad @ April 20, 2007 06:00 pm)Again then, they were a bourgeoisie that was the first bourgeoisie in the history of capitalism to give up their power peacefully.

They simply gave up their state without a fight, against all historical precedent.[/b] How quickly one can neglect the coup attempt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_coup_attempt_of_1991), one of the most peaceful interactions known to all humanity :lol:

Why would there be a worker's revolution in a feudal nation? There has never been a coherent answer to this question.It was semi-feudal, for one.. Yes, 80% of the population being peasantry implies a "semi-feudal" mode of production (whatever that's supposed to mean).

What is absolutely fascinating is that in 1789 France had the exact same percentage of their population as peasantry (source (http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/History/21H-912The-World-Since-1492Spring2003/7AF86561-68A3-403A-A568-A9E5B5C8335C/0/hohand71.pdf) - it's a pdf).

France was revolutionary because it was the first to ever have overthrown the feudal mode of production completely. Russia however was one of the last. That's why Marx and Engels agreed that:
Originally posted by Marx and [email protected]
The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property. (from The Communist Manifesto Chapter Two (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm))

There really was nothing remarkably different from how Russia dealt with it in the early part of the 20th century compared to how most bourgeois revolutions were.

Insomuch as the French revolution was a bourgeois one, so too was Lenin's rise to power a bourgeois revolution.

Then there's thing about imperialism, which Lenin pointed out (in his most significant contribution to communist theory). The problem is that his "most significant contribution to communist theory" is completely useless.

It provides absolutely nothing new to communist theory. For example, Lenin defines the five characteristics of Imperialism as:
Lenin
(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopoly capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed. (Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism by Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm#v22zz99h-265-GUESS))

Well, point one was covered in sections 7 and 8 of Das Kapital, vol. I. (I won't waste space quoting the sections unless you would like me to, just ask and I'll happily provide quotes :))

Point two is a logical consequence of the accumulation process. Recall that "Bank capital consists of 1) cash money, gold or notes; 2) securities." (Das Kapital, vol. III chapter 29 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch29.htm))

So in other words, it's a point in the accumulation process where we have (essentially) modern day corporations that have a modern day stock market mechanism.

But this is predicted and explained (albeit minimally since it's essentially in the format of a collection of notes) in Das Kapital, vol. III, chapter 27.

Points three, four, and five were predicted (if not explicitly stated) in the manifesto.

So his real claim to fame is merely point two, which anyone could have deduced from reading Das Kapital. This is precisely what Marx did.

This "significant contribution" is perhaps one of the smallest, indeed non-existent, corollaries I've ever seen.

This point that Lenin's theory of imperialism as some sort of ingenius deduction that only an "Einstein" of the social sciences could have done always makes me laugh, as though imperialism didn't exist "way back" in "Marx's times" :lol:

Marx seemed to point out what follows from feudalism is capitalism.He wasn't as mechanical in his application of historical materialism as you are.. He saw for the possibility of revolutions happening in less developed countries, but said they must spread to the more developed countries to be successful: "Any upheaval in economic relations in any country of the European continent, in the whole European continent without England, is a storm in a teacup. Industrial and commercial relations within each nation are governed by its intercourse with other nations, and depend on its relations with the world market. But the world market is dominated by England and England is dominated by the bourgeoisie." (Marx, 1849) Well, the Russian Revolution was nothing more than one of the last bourgeois revolutions.

Based on the material conditions empirically compared to others that caused bourgeois revolutions, Russia's revolution was a bourgeois revolution.

The revolution was a revolutionary change for Russia, but it was no worker's state nor was it socialism.

It was state capitalism with red flags and leftist sounding rhetoric to disguise imperialist actions...like all bourgeois revolutionary states.

Guest1

21st April 2007, 07:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:59 pm
Based on the material conditions empirically compared to others that caused bourgeois revolutions, Russia's revolution was a bourgeois revolution.
Based on textbook analysis of cobweb-covered formulations that cry "academic!", I have deduced that because the situation before the revolution in Russia was similar to the situation before the revolution in France, we can ignore who actually took power and just say they were both bourgeois revolutions.

And you accuse dialectical materialists of an ontological and deterministic view of social science? :o

I suppose the Paris Commune had absolutely no example of proletarian power? And Russia magnifying the Commune into the workers' Soviets that took power meant nothing either?

Or the bourgeoisie starting a civil war after the Czar was dead and Feudalism defeated, and being expelled, I guess that says the bourgeoisie took power even while they were expelled.

Wow... I'm impressed with empiricism, a priori examination while throwing out the actual historical events of the revolution itself are alot of fun.

I could prove you're a monkey from how many fingers you have.

Nothing Human Is Alien

21st April 2007, 08:11

How quickly one can neglect the coup attempt, one of the most peaceful interactions known to all humanity

Uh... the coup?

Uh... the State Emergency Committee wasn't fighting to prevent counterrevolution.. in fact, it really wasn't fighting at all (Go back and read accounts of the soldiers driving the tanks into Moscow, they didn't even know what they were supposed to do!).

The SEC declared martial law and told workers not to leave their houses. Is that how you mobilize folks to defend an (at the very least ostensibly) workers' state?? When Yeltsin mobilized folks behind the counterrevolution and set up barricades at the White House, the SEC didn't do anything (not even arrest Yeltsin)! Some fight!

In the way of a program, the SEC issued some bullshit statement that didn't even mention the world socialism, but instead promised to continue on the road to counterrevolution.. just in a different way.

Really, they wanted to be Washington's "go to guys;" but that position was already filled by Yeltsin.

You can't seriously be arguing that the SEC represented the "new bourgeoisie"?? You can't be saying that this was all the fight a propertied rulling class that ruled over a union of 15 republics could muster?? If it was that easy, we could have overthrown the bourgeoisie along time ago!!

So, like I said.. if there was a "new bourgeoisie" then "they were a bourgeoisie that was the first bourgeoisie in the history of capitalism to give up their power peacefully.

"They simply gave up their state without a fight, against all historical precedent."

Yes, 80% of the population being peasantry implies a "semi-feudal" mode of production

No, property relations do.

(whatever that's supposed to mean).

It means not entirely feudal. Semi-feudal. Each society is born of the last society..

"The hand-mill" had not been entirely replaced with "the steam-mill."

What else can I say?

This "significant contribution" is perhaps one of the smallest, indeed non-existent, corollaries I've ever seen.

Only to a similarly small mind I guess.

The stage of imperialism both prolonged the existance of capitalism in the imperialist countries, and prevented its healthy development in the imperialist-oppressed countries.

And no, Marx did not live in the imperialist epoch; but he did predict it would arrise in a way (in The Poverty of Philosophy for example).

* * *

As for the last bit about the October Revolution being "bourgeois", CyM pretty much nailed that ridiculous notion.

Rawthentic

21st April 2007, 17:00

lol you obviously don't know much about Stalin, because he grew up in an extremely poor family. His class interests were not with the petty-bourgeiosie or the peasantry, but only with the workers. In fact that was one error he made. He didn't see the peasantry as a class which had a revolutionary potential, which is why he sent urban workers to collective the countryside
lol you obviously don't know much about anything. I guess we can all see that he was a class traitor. His class interests did not side with the workers because he was not one and never was. So stop lying and vulgarizing marxism. Being determines conscious, not the other way around.

bcbm

21st April 2007, 18:26

I'm not sure what exactly you're arguing, CDL. What exactly are you saying the leaders of the USSR were?

black magick hustla

21st April 2007, 18:55

Yeah, I don't understand also your point CDL.

Die Neue Zeit

21st April 2007, 19:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:00 pm

lol you obviously don't know much about Stalin, because he grew up in an extremely poor family. His class interests were not with the petty-bourgeiosie or the peasantry, but only with the workers. In fact that was one error he made. He didn't see the peasantry as a class which had a revolutionary potential, which is why he sent urban workers to collective the countryside
lol you obviously don't know much about anything. I guess we can all see that he was a class traitor. His class interests did not side with the workers because he was not one and never was. So stop lying and vulgarizing marxism. Being determines conscious, not the other way around.
Actually, the Maoist is right on Stalin's economic background. :(

His father was a petty-bourgeois turned proletarian (shoe shop owner to bankrupt shoe factory worker).

In spite of this, yet another of his grave counter-revolutionary policies wasn't the sending of urban workers, but rather the preference of kolkhozy over sovkhozy (where the state was the actual owner of the farm and where the farmers worked for a wage).

I know what Kautsky said about "no socialist who is to be taken seriously has ever demanded that the farmers should be exappropriated, or that their goods should be confiscated," (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/socrev/pt2-2.htm#s7), but there were so many landless peasants before October (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_USSR#Implementation). The Bolshevik mistake was the redistribution of land over "statification."

ComradeRed

21st April 2007, 21:50

I have the sensation of talking to economists, empiricism is thrown out the window in lieu of a farce of a scientific method.

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+April 20, 2007 10:42 pm--> (Che y Marijuana @ April 20, 2007 10:42 pm)
Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 20, 2007 11:59 pm--> (ComradeRed @ April 20, 2007 11:59 pm) Based on the material conditions empirically compared to others that caused bourgeois revolutions, Russia's revolution was a bourgeois revolution. [/b]Based on textbook analysis of cobweb-covered formulations that cry "academic!", I have deduced that because the situation before the revolution in Russia was similar to the situation before the revolution in France, we can ignore who actually took power and just say they were both bourgeois revolutions.[/b]
"Evil academic! How dare you look at reality!" :lol:

The class composition of society couldn't possibly tell us anything about the material conditions of the society! Much less how technologically developed a society is, or what mode of production it is!

Because as we all know from experience, 80% of the population in the capitalist mode of production are peasants. :rolleyes:

Brilliant!

Instead, simply believe the explanation given by the local ruling class. They wouldn't lie, no never.

The USSR had the word "socialist" in it, it must have been socialist...just as Nazis are with the same reasoning "socialist".

Or perhaps we should look deeper than face value. It's a controversial approach to say the least.

Here's a little trick with causal relations. There are two similar events, say the changing of the mode of production from feudalism to something else.

First, check the causes (which I've done and you've ignored as "academic" -- though that's really no rebuttal).

Then check the results. If the causes and results are similar enough, then the events are considered similar (in this case a bourgeois revolution).

Marx points out:
Originally posted by Marx
Still, its development remained clogged by all manner of medieval rubbish, seignorial rights, local privileges, municipal and guild monopolies, and provincial constitutions. The gigantic broom of the French Revolution of the 18th century swept away all these relics of bygone times, thus clearing simultaneously the social soil of its last hinderances to the superstructure of the modern state edifice raised under the First Empire, itself the offspring of the coalition wars of old semi-feudal Europe against modern France.The Civil War in France (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm) by Karl Marx.

France, after the revolution, abolished superstition and essentially removed the superstructure of feudal society whilst erecting the new, revolutionary superstructure.

Russia did similar motions with its revolution.

In §5 of section 2 of the Soviet Constitution was a radical turn for Russia: a complete seperation of church and state.

There are a number of other sweeping revolutionary changes in the superstructure, but it would be trivial discussing it here. We both know that the revolution caused a huge change in the superstructure.

Originally posted by Marx
During the subsequent regimes, the government, placed under parliamentary control — that is, under the direct control of the propertied classes — became not only a hotbed of huge national debts and crushing taxes; with its irresistible allurements of place, pelf, and patronage, it became not only the bone of contention between the rival factions and adventurers of the ruling classes; but its political character changed simultaneously with the economic changes of society. The Civil War in France (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm) by Karl Marx.

Is it any surprise then that the statistics of the propertied classes of the soviet union were party members as time went on?

To reiterate the statistics:
Originally posted by ComradeRed
Just looking over a few statistics here: in 1923, a mere 29% of the factory directors were in the party. Whereas in 1925 (you know, after that small victory for Stalin), 73.7% of the members of the members of the managing boards of trusts, 81.5% of those on the boards of syndicates, and 95% of the directors of large enterprises were party members(!). (See A.S. Bubnov and others, The All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) (Russian), Moscow-Leningrad 1931, page 626)

Wait, it gets better! In 1936 this figure raises to somewhere in between 97.5% to 99.1% of these chaps were in the party, and for the chiefs of trusts this figure is 100% (See USSR, The Land of Socialism (Russian), Moscow 1936, p.94.)From the statistics, these are bourgeois positions. The people that fill them are, gasp, party members!

So the obviously this couldn't possibly be capitalism. It is common knowledge that the bourgeoisie aren't in the government and own the means of production in the capitalist mode of production, only in a worker's state is it run by the capitalists!

Originally posted by CyM
And you accuse dialectical materialists of an ontological and deterministic view of social science? :o Red Herring, besides determinism never bothered me. Mysticism and Idealism, on the other hand, bothers me greatly.

I suppose the Paris Commune had absolutely no example of proletarian power? Marx's assessment of the Paris Commune is an example of proletarian power; the actual commune itself was not.

It was actually not all that different from the Soviet Union: a "vanguard" (in the Paris Commune, Blanquists, in the USSR, the well "vanguard") trying to act against the material conditions.

And Russia magnifying the Commune into the workers' Soviets that took power meant nothing either? Is that why Lenin said in 1919, when securing power was in the foreseeable future, "When we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of one party and, as you have heard...we say, 'Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party!'" (From Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 29, pages 532-539)?

And Lenin was right, it was effectively a dictatorship of the Party. It "just so happened" by "some random occurrence" that the party becomes increasingly filled with bourgeoisie over time and begins to remove the petit bourgeois elements from it.

A dictatorship of the bourgeoisie! That couldn't possibly be capitalism!

[email protected]
Or the bourgeoisie starting a civil war after the Czar was dead and Feudalism defeated, and being expelled, I guess that says the bourgeoisie took power even while they were expelled. Or maybe just maybe the "vanguard party" was little more than the cadre of petit bourgeois revolutionaries led by haut bourgeois.

Why that couldn't possibly be the very point I made in my last post.

Wow... I'm impressed with empiricism, a priori examination while throwing out the actual historical events of the revolution itself are alot of fun. It's a new experience for you, critical thinking, but I have "faith" that you'll get the hang of it...eventually.

Or else you can continue to straw man, that appears to be moderately successful.

I could prove you're a monkey from how many fingers you have. Wouldn't surprise me that a dialectician would think that to be a proof :lol:

CdL:

CdL
Uh... the State Emergency Committee wasn't fighting to prevent counterrevolution.. in fact, it really wasn't fighting at all (Go back and read accounts of the soldiers driving the tanks into Moscow, they didn't even know what they were supposed to do!). What's really interesting is looking at the irc logs (http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/communications/logs/report-ussr-gorbatchev) recording the news of the coup doesn't challenge the notion that the soldiers didn't know why they were mobilized, but does indicate that the SEC was fighting to keep the USSR together.

The SEC declared martial law and told workers not to leave their houses. Is that how you mobilize folks to defend an (at the very least ostensibly) workers' state?? It wasn't a worker's state, it was a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie!

When Yeltsin mobilized folks behind the counterrevolution and set up barricades at the White House, the SEC didn't do anything (not even arrest Yeltsin)! No, the military defected from the senile ruling class to this radical middle class politician.

Gorbochov was under house arrest, and Yeltsin was besieged for several days until the military defected.

You can't seriously be arguing that the SEC represented the "new bourgeoisie"?? No, they were the "old" bourgeoisie trying to hold together the old USSR together.

You can't be saying that this was all the fight a propertied rulling class that ruled over a union of 15 republics could muster?? If it was that easy, we could have overthrown the bourgeoisie along time ago!! Well, in late feudalism, the ruling class was senile, this is empirically observable. This is a characteristic of the late period of any mode of production.

Throughout the history of the soviet union, they have concentrated capital in the hands of very few, exported capital at a rather high level, formed an international monopoly capitalist relation, and - along with the U$ - divided the world among the two of them.

Do these characteristics ring a bell?

They should, they are four out of the five characteristics for an "imperialist capitalist" state.

You know, the time when the ruling class begins its senility.

What a surprise, this is observably what happened.

Yes, 80% of the population being peasantry implies a "semi-feudal" mode of productionNo, property relations do. All right, semi-feudal, late feudal, potato patato. Does this really change anything though?

No.

The main point is that the material conditions for a worker state to come about were not present in 1917-1920 Russia.

I've all ready gone over this point in rather extensive detail.

Only to a similarly small mind I guess. :lol: What a brilliant argument!

Rather than actually come up with something to counter my argument, just say "Oh yeah, you're stupid!" The argument of champions :lol:

But saying "You're stupid" does not refute what I pointed out. The characteristics of imperialism that you look for are logical consequences of the law of accumulation.

The problem is that this makes Lenin's theory of imperialism a bad theory. There are no unique predictions to look for, as they've been predicted by Marx all ready without Lenin's theory of imperialism.

To which you reply, as if for the comic relief of this debate, "Yeah yeah, you're an idiot!" As though looking at the strength of Lenin's theory were an absurd thing to do!

The stage of imperialism both prolonged the existance of capitalism in the imperialist countries, and prevented its healthy development in the imperialist-oppressed countries. Yes, that is often the assertion.

But Lenin's theory of imperialism is a bad theory since the criteria you are looking for is present inherently with Marx's Law of Accumulation over time.

In other words, there are no unique predictions for the theory. That's the indicator for a bad theory; it would be a better theory if it made different unique predictions, even if wrong empirically.

And no, Marx did not live in the imperialist epoch; but he did predict it would arrise in a way (in The Poverty of Philosophy for example). Could you provide some quotes to substantiate this assertion? I've thumbed through my copy and couldn't find any indication of this in The Poverty of Philosophy.

Die Neue Zeit

21st April 2007, 23:41

^^^ That last part about The Poverty of Philosophy:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/ps4-a09.shtml (Trotskyist link)

Thesis: Feudal monopoly, before competition
Antithesis: Competition
Synthesis: Modern monopoly, which is the negation of feudal monopoly, is so far as it implies the system of competition, and the negation of competition is so far as it is monopoly.

Oh, and I seriously disagree with your position on the thoroughly proletarian Paris Commune. Its failure was political, not economic (which might happen to Venezuela today, too, if it doesn't nationalize the banks).

Throughout the history of the Soviet Union, they have concentrated capital in the hands of very few, exported capital at a rather high level, formed an international monopoly capitalist relation, and - along with the U$ - divided the world among the two of them.

Do these characteristics ring a bell?

They should, they are four out of the five characteristics for an "imperialist capitalist" state.

You forgot the fifth: the prominence of finance capital ;)

Since that wasn't prominent, that already knocks down your "Lenin's theory was absurd" stuff. Furthermore, capital wasn't exported high enough to qualify for the imperialism criteria, given the stated yet backward attempts at autarky (funny how the Trotskyist website above said that the Soviet-Cuban relationship was "reverse" of imperialism, with the Soviets subsidizing Cuban oil purchases and the Cubans "super-profiting" from Soviet sugar purchases ;) ). As for monopoly capitalist relation, again refer to my autarky stuff. Even the "privileged" Brezhnev, when realizing the need for greater Comecon integration, didn't practice what he preached.

Bottom line: Lenin's theory of imperialism is primarily economic (ALL FIVE CRITERIA MUST BE MET SIMULTANEOUSLY), wresting away the term from the usual political connotations. Yes, the post-WWII Soviet Union was POLITICALLY imperialist, but economically speaking? No.

ComradeRed

22nd April 2007, 01:08

Originally posted by Hammer+April 21, 2007 02:41 pm--> (Hammer @ April 21, 2007 02:41 pm)^^^ That last part about The Poverty of Philosophy:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/ps4-a09.shtml (Trotskyist link)

Thesis: Feudal monopoly, before competition
Antithesis: Competition
Synthesis: Modern monopoly, which is the negation of feudal monopoly, is so far as it implies the system of competition, and the negation of competition is so far as it is monopoly.[/b]
That's supposed to be Marx's prelude to Lenin's theory of imperialism? :huh:

Oh, and I seriously disagree with your position on the thoroughly proletarian Paris Commune. Its failure was political, not economic (which might happen to Venezuela today, too, if it doesn't nationalize the banks). I never said the Paris Commune was thoroughly proletarian, I said Marx's assessment of it was.

You forgot the fifth: the prominence of finance capital ;) Which is why I said:
Originally posted by ComradeRed+--> (ComradeRed)They should, they are four out of the five characteristics for an "imperialist capitalist" state.[/b] --emphasis added

Since that wasn't prominent, that already knocks down your "Lenin's theory was absurd" stuff.No, it really doesn't!

Lenin's theory was a bad one because there were no distinguishing features of it, compared to the accumulation of capital over time as described by Marx.

That makes Lenin's theory a bad theory!

When you make a theory that has nothing significantly new to look for, that makes it a bad theory.

That's simple scientific logic right there though ;)

Furthermore, capital wasn't exported high enough to qualify for the imperialism criteria, given the stated yet backward attempts at autarky (funny how the Trotskyist website above said that the Soviet-Cuban relationship was "reverse" of imperialism, with the Soviets subsidizing Cuban oil purchases and the Cubans "super-profiting" from Soviet sugar purchases ;) ). Comecon is really the means by which the USSR exported capital. From the Country Studies (http://rs6.loc.gov/frd/cs/sutoc.html) in the Library of Congress' archives:
Ostensibly, Comecon was organized to coordinate economic and technical cooperation between the Soviet Union and the member countries. In reality, the Soviet Union's domination over Comecon activities reflected its economic, political, and military power.
In 1960 the Soviet Union sent 56 percent of its exports to and received 58 percent of its imports from Comecon members. From that time, the volume of this trade has steadily increased, but the proportion of Soviet trade with Comecon members decreased as the Soviet Union sought to increase trade with Western industrialized countries.
The membership of Cuba, Mongolia, and Vietnam in Comecon has served Soviet foreign policy interests more than the economic welfare of Comecon members. In general, the more economically developed European members have supported the three less developed members by providing a large market for their exports, often at above-market prices. Most of Cuba's sugar and nickel and all of Mongolia's copper and molybdenum have been imported by the Soviet Union. An imperialist country never leeches off of its colonies, just like the Soviet Union didn't leech off of the members of Comecon.

The plain fact of the matter is that Comecon was used to coordinate the Soviet Union's dominance over other countries in practice.

As for monopoly capitalist relation, again refer to my autarky stuff. Even the "privileged" Brezhnev, when realizing the need for greater Comecon integration, didn't practice what he preached. What "auturky stuff" are you referring to exactly?

Bottom line: Lenin's theory of imperialism is primarily economic (ALL FIVE CRITERIA MUST BE MET SIMULTANEOUSLY), wresting away the term from the usual political connotations. Yes, the post-WWII Soviet Union was POLITICALLY imperialist, but economically speaking? No. Recall Marx's definition of Bank Capital:
[email protected]
Bank capital consists of 1) cash money, gold or notes; 2) securities. The latter can be subdivided into two parts: commercial paper or bills of exchange, which run for a period, become due from time to time, and whose discounting constitutes the essential business of the banker; and public securities, such as government bonds, treasury notes, stocks of all kinds, in short, interest-bearing paper which is however significantly different from bills of exchange. Das Kapital, vol. III chapter 29 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch29.htm)

Well, the USSR had cash money, so check number one off.

Securities is the trickier part. Well, curious enough, just do a google search and Marxists.org (http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1928/sufds/ch11.htm) has data on Soviet Securities which did in fact exist.

Could it have practically have taken the shape of "finance capital" after world war 2? Well, looking at the historical record from the library of congress:
Library of Congress
In 1984 increases in capital investments within Comecon were highest for Vietnam and Cuba (26.9 percent for Vietnam and 14 percent for Cuba, compared with 3.3 percent and less for the others, except Poland and Romania). Increased investments in Mongolia lagged behind those in Poland and Romania but were nevertheless substantial (5.8 percent). In 1984 the economies of the three developing countries registered the fastest industrial growth of all the Comecon members. Hmm, the soviet union "investing" in other countries' industry that is subservient to the USSR? That appears to be finance capital.

So it turns out I was wrong, the Soviet Union qualifies five out of five, and is a "genuine" imperialist nation.

Die Neue Zeit

22nd April 2007, 03:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 12:08 am
That's supposed to be Marx's prelude to Lenin's theory of imperialism? :huh:

Lenin's theory was a bad one because there were no distinguishing features of it, compared to the accumulation of capital over time as described by Marx.

That makes Lenin's theory a bad theory!

When you make a theory that has nothing significantly new to look for, that makes it a bad theory.
Think of it this way: Marx was predicting the phenomenon using Hegelian dialectic. Since Lenin's time and moreso now, that dialectic in identifying the phenomenon is only good as a history and/or philosophy lesson, because the phenomenon is fact. My signature is a re-phrasing of the synthesis. ;)

Lenin's theory was a bad one because there were no distinguishing features of it, compared to the accumulation of capital over time as described by Marx.

Sure there was: the prominence of finance capital over industrial capital in the new "monopoly finance capital" marriage. <_<

Actually, I'll call the finance capital sub-theory the "Hilferding-Lenin" theory of finance capital for the purposes of this discussion. Marx was overly focused on industrial capital as the driver of the economy (hence the albeit valid LTV stuff). Read up on Hilferding's Finance Capital, and Lenin's response:

"A steadily increasing proportion of capital in industry," writes Hilferding, "ceases to belong to the industrialists who employ it. They obtain the use of it only through the medium of the banks which, in relation to them, represent the owners of the capital. On the other hand, the bank is forced to sink an increasing share of its funds in industry. Thus, to an ever greater degree the banker is being transformed into an industrial capitalist. This bank capital, i.e., capital in money form, which is thus actually transformed into industrial capital, I call 'finance capital'." "Finance capital is capital controlled by banks and employed by industrialists."

This definition is incomplete insofar as it is silent on one extremely important fact - on the increase of concentration of production and of capital to such an extent that concentration is leading, and has led, to monopoly. But throughout the whole of his work, and particularly in the two chapters preceding the one from which this definition is taken, Hilferding stresses the part played by capitalist monopolies.

Now:

An imperialist country never leeches off of its colonies, just like the Soviet Union didn't leech off of the members of Comecon.

On that matter you and I will agree, given another imperialist phenomenon that has arisen: the IMPORT of capital into the U$ (all the talk of US debt being owned by China). Like I said, Lenin tore away "imperialism" from its old definition, wherein feudal empires DID leech off of its far-away subjects. The "world's policeman" is being exploited, as well.

What "auturky stuff" are you referring to exactly?

Economic self-sufficiency :)

ComradeRed

22nd April 2007, 04:10

Originally posted by Hammer+April 21, 2007 06:36 pm--> (Hammer @ April 21, 2007 06:36 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 12:08 am
That's supposed to be Marx's prelude to Lenin's theory of imperialism? :huh:

Lenin's theory was a bad one because there were no distinguishing features of it, compared to the accumulation of capital over time as described by Marx.

That makes Lenin's theory a bad theory!

When you make a theory that has nothing significantly new to look for, that makes it a bad theory. Think of it this way: Marx was predicting the phenomenon using Hegelian dialectic.[/b]That's rather debatable since:

a) The Hegelian dialectic has not been coherently presented, so one could argue that a huddled mess of metaphysical psychobabble is "Hegelian"

b) The only "Hegelian-looking" part of Capital is chapter 1 of volume 1. Part 7 of vol. I was not hidden in the cobwebs of such an idealistic method.

c) Marx is more like the Einstein of his time (actually this is remarkably true). The latter was working with a great deal of independent ideas (thermodynamics, electrodynamics, and mechanics) and combined them together (eletrodynamics + mechanics -> special relativity, mechanics + thermodynamics -> brownian motion, electrodynamics + thermodynamics -> photoelectric effect). Marx did the same thing, borrowing from the French Socialists, English Economists, and Scottish Enlightened (Historian) philosophers (Leninists like to assert that German philosophy is more important, but since it's incoherent and nonsensically idealistic, it's utterly useless).

Since Lenin's time and moreso now, that dialectic in identifying the phenomenon is only good as a history and/or philosophy lesson, because the phenomenon is fact. My signature is a re-phrasing of the synthesis. This statement is entirely meaningless, shrouded in the ambiguities of dialectics.

As for your signature, it too is little more than dialectical voodoo. Marx put it far simpler in section 7 of Das Kapital volume I...without using a method decoupled from reality.

Lenin's theory was a bad one because there were no distinguishing features of it, compared to the accumulation of capital over time as described by Marx.

Sure there was: the prominence of finance capital over industrial capital in the new "monopoly finance capital" marriage. <_< Well, the problem here though is -- as I've pointed out earlier in this thread -- Marx identified this "championship" of bank capital over industrial capital in Das Kapital vol. III from his law of accumulation. (Thank goodness people are reading my posts <_<)

There goes the last great hope for having a unique prediction for Lenin's theory of imperialism.

Die Neue Zeit

22nd April 2007, 05:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 03:10 am
Leninists like to assert that German philosophy is more important, but since it's incoherent and nonsensically idealistic, it's utterly useless).
That assertion of yours is nonsense, given "Leninism's" materialist and political emphasis. Notice that the original, orthodox Hegelians (Right Hegelians) were reduced to theological issues. If anything else, later Marxists like Luxemburg and Lenin also put Hegelian dialectics to the backburner in favour of revolution.

Oh, and by calling Marx an Einstein figure, you glorify him too much, even if his "thoughts" ceased to exist by his death (as Engels said). Like Einstein's FAILURE to cough up a Unified Field Theory (a jab at your physics-related occupation ;) ), Marx couldn't link up the three Marxian economic thoughts as outlined below.

As for your signature, it too is little more than dialectical voodoo.

How can it be "voodoo" when it describes cold facts, using very economic terms?

Well, the problem here though is -- as I've pointed out earlier in this thread -- [b]Marx identified this "champtionship" of bank capital over industrial capital in Das Kapital vol. III from his law of accumulation. (Thank goodness people are reading my posts <_<)

There goes the last great hope for having a unique prediction for Lenin's theory of imperialism.

You really should read up on Sweezy's criticism of Marx being the all-knowing prophet you claim him to be, in spite of his brilliant thinking:

http://www.monthlyreview.org/1004lebowitz.htm

As they noted in their introduction, it was a work generated by, among other things, a dissatisfaction with the adequacy of existing Marxist analyses (including their own) of monopoly capitalism. Marxist theory could explain well the Depression of the 1930s, but fell short in dealing with a postwar period in which severe depression had not reoccurred. “Nor have Marxists contributed significantly,” they commented, “to our understanding of some of the major characteristics of the ‘affluent society’—particularly its colossal capacity to generate private and public waste and the profound economic, political, and cultural consequences which flow from this feature of the system.”

At the core of the “stagnation of Marxian social science” was the failure to place monopoly at the very center of analysis. The project, an attempt to “remedy this situation in an explicit and indeed radical fashion,” was organized around “one central theme: the generation and absorption of the surplus under conditions of monopoly capitalism.”

Accumulation theory alone is NOT enough to explain monopoly power. Even Lenin failed to emphasis monopoly, continuing to focus on the fourth and fifth characteristics of imperialism instead of the first three (at least after October, but this should NOT be a negative offsetting point against his major contribution to the theory of monopoly capitalism) - hence my first question on this board: why the continued usage of "imperialism" instead of "monopoly"?

http://www.monthlyreview.org/0102jbf.htm

By the 1930s Marxian economics could be said to have three strands: (1) the theory of capital accumulation and crisis; (2) the beginnings of a theory of monopoly capitalism (based on Marx’s concept of the concentration and centralization of capital); and (3) the theory of imperialism. The second and third strands—growing monopolization and imperialism—had been linked to each other by Lenin. But, paradoxically, there was no theoretical analysis that linked the second strand to the first—that is, no connection was drawn between growing concentration and centralization of capital and the forms of accumulation and crisis. The debate on economic crisis in Marxian theory, which in the early twentieth century centered on Marx’s famous reproduction schemes in in Capital, Volume 2, took place in a context that was completely separate from the analysis of the growth of monopoly.

ComradeRed

22nd April 2007, 07:22

Originally posted by Hammer+April 21, 2007 08:40 pm--> (Hammer @ April 21, 2007 08:40 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 03:10 am
Leninists like to assert that German philosophy is more important, but since it's incoherent and nonsensically idealistic, it's utterly useless).
That assertion of yours is nonsense, given the materialist and political emphasis. Notice that the original, orthodox Hegelians (Right Hegelians) were reduced to theological issues. If anything else, later Marxists like Luxemburg and Lenin also put Hegelian dialectics to the backburner in favour of revolution.[/b] <_< When discussing the influences of Marx, Lenin thought otherwise. It has caused Leninists ever since to be drawn into dialectics like moths to a flame.

A great many deal of Leninists continue to think that dialectics are "useful" despite the obvious idealism. You may disagree with them, but that doesn't change the fact they exist.

Dialectics were used as a scaffold which Marx and Engels constructed superior tools; keeping dialectics has no real advantage over evil "metaphysical" formal logic.

I'm intrigued by her criticism of the Leninist paradigm, but I'm critical of her paradigm.

Oh, and by calling Marx an Einstein figure, you glorify him too much, even if his "thoughts" ceased to exist by his death (as Engels said). Perhaps it's because I can appreciate Einstein as human more than you can because I'm a physicist that deals with Einstein's work every day and realized that Einstein too fucked up a great deal. He was no a mythical saint who instantaneously perceived the truth, as his name now is synonymous with.

His ingenuity was in taking concepts that pre-existed, and combining them together. That was what made Einstein a genius.

That very characteristic is what made Marx a genius. He was not a saint that mythically perceived the truth however!

And it's relatively difficult to argue that Marx didn't combine elements of different social sciences into his final theory; largely because you'd have to be blatantly ignorant of the Marxist paradigm, how it came about, or the predecessors to it.

As for your signature, it too is little more than dialectical voodoo.

How can it be "voodoo" when it describes cold facts, using very economic terms? Oh pardon me, I didn't realize that "exact opposite", "conflict", "a number of very acute, intense antagonisms, frictions and conflicts", and other dialectical jargon were "economic terms".

Well, the problem here though is -- as I've pointed out earlier in this thread -- [b]Marx identified this "championship" of bank capital over industrial capital in Das Kapital vol. III from his law of accumulation. (Thank goodness people are reading my posts <_<)

There goes the last great hope for having a unique prediction for Lenin's theory of imperialism.

You really should read up on Sweezy's criticism of Marx being the all-knowing prophet you claim him to be, in spite of his brilliant thinking: I never said that Marx was a mythical saint that instantaneously perceived the truth, don't put words in my mouth. I explained this above.

And despite your assertion, I have read some of Sweezy's work.

I merely reject Sweezy's case for monopoly capitalism to be recognized as a special form of capitalism. Here's why:

As they noted in their introduction, it was a work generated by, among other things, a dissatisfaction with the adequacy of existing Marxist analyses (including their own) of monopoly capitalism. Marxist theory could explain well the Depression of the 1930s, but fell short in dealing with a postwar period in which severe depression had not reoccurred. “Nor have Marxists contributed significantly,” they commented, “to our understanding of some of the major characteristics of the ‘affluent society’—particularly its colossal capacity to generate private and public waste and the profound economic, political, and cultural consequences which flow from this feature of the system.”

At the core of the “stagnation of Marxian social science” was the failure to place monopoly at the very center of analysis. The project, an attempt to “remedy this situation in an explicit and indeed radical fashion,” was organized around “one central theme: the generation and absorption of the surplus under conditions of monopoly capitalism.” Given by our good Hammer (what a terrible pun, an affront to the worst of comedians): http://www.monthlyreview.org/1004lebowitz.htm

Yeah, trying to explain why there were no "big crashes" is a serious problem :rolleyes:

Here's my crack at it: there were "crashes" but because after the war (from 1950 onward, there was a post-war recession remember when the troops got back to the capitalist nations) Europe had to rebuild itself and the former colonies were not quite self-sufficient.

Well, if you have a country with the industrial capital destroyed and no means to rebuild itself, that's a perfect place to make more factories. You hire construction workers to do it, which creates a market to buy the goods made by the factories created, the construction workers are laid off and become factory workers, thus perpetuating the cycle.

Now imagine doing this with the entire world as opposed one country. You can imagine that the general direction of the country that will be doing this re-industrialization would make a mint.

And indeed, the U$ did.

But there were "dips" in the economy, as predicted and explained by Marxist economics. This is noticeable in the real GDP of the U$ from 1950 to the present in chained dollars.

Curiously, these dips have a strong correlation with the dips in the labor force, again as predicted by Marxist theory. (If anyone really wants to see the statistics for this, if I can find a site or a way to make it into an image, I can present them here)

Accumulation theory alone is NOT enough to explain monopoly power. Monopoly power or imperialism? The former, it is easily achievable, it's called "the concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands".

The latter is not possible by the Law of Accumulation alone, but by Marx's theories alone yes...as I've pointed out the five characteristics are empirically observable from Marx's theories alone.

Which is exactly why Lenin's theory of imperialism (or whoever you wish to attribute it to, it doesn't matter) is a bad theory.

Even Lenin failed to emphasis monopoly, continuing to focus on the fourth and fifth characteristics of imperialism instead of the first three (at least after October, but this should NOT be a negative offsetting point against his major contribution to the theory of monopoly capitalism) - hence my first question on this board: why the continued usage of "imperialism" instead of "monopoly"? In my opinion, Sweezy's theory of monopoly capitalism is a load of bullocks.

I'm sympathetic towards Mandel's criticism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1967/03/ltv-mcap.htm).

By the 1930s Marxian economics could be said to have three strands: (1) the theory of capital accumulation and crisis; (2) the beginnings of a theory of monopoly capitalism (based on Marx’s concept of the concentration and centralization of capital); and (3) the theory of imperialism. The second and third strands—growing monopolization and imperialism—had been linked to each other by Lenin. But, paradoxically, there was no theoretical analysis that linked the second strand to the first—that is, no connection was drawn between growing concentration and centralization of capital and the forms of accumulation and crisis. The debate on economic crisis in Marxian theory, which in the early twentieth century centered on Marx’s famous reproduction schemes in in Capital, Volume 2, took place in a context that was completely separate from the analysis of the growth of monopoly. Here is where Marx is human. The error Marx makes in volume 2 of Das Kapital is the very same error that bourgeois economists make with their economic models: he tries to mix apples and oranges in an oversimplified model.

Using a painstakingly more accurate model with N-sectors that can be divided into two collections (each collection reminiscent of the model delivered to us by Marx in volume 2 of Das Kapital).

We can then describe this economy with M-commodity inputs as an M by N matrix. We can then explain the creation of new sectors through the introduction of Matrix multiplication, and so forth.

We can further complicate things and make these systems of differential equations that are themselves systems of differential equations. But since the audience here is not math nerds, I will not continue to elucidate how we can make things more precise.

Economists are quick to reduce things to their price, and how much they cost and so forth, adding up things which are otherwise incapable of being added together (e.g. hours of labor with tons of steel, or whatever).

Marx makes a similar simplification.

This is an unnecessary simplification. It's something I reject from Marx.

However, one can retain the important characteristics of Marxist economics from volume 1 of Das Kapital relatively unscathed.

Die Neue Zeit

22nd April 2007, 07:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:22 am
When discussing the influences of Marx, Lenin thought otherwise. It has caused Leninists ever since to be drawn into dialectics like moths to a flame.

A great many deal of Leninists continue to think that dialectics are "useful" despite the obvious idealism. You may disagree with them, but that doesn't change the fact they exist.
Citations? <_<

And it's relatively difficult to argue that Marx didn't combine elements of different social sciences into his final theory; largely because you'd have to be blatantly ignorant of the Marxist paradigm, how it came about, or the predecessors to it.

I'm not saying that he didn't combine anything. It's just that his "final" theory - accumulation and crisis - opened new doors to connect it to other related phenomenon (monopoly capitalism and imperialism, the former being my primary focus thanks to selected portions of a certain "outline" ;) ).

And despite your assertion, I have read some of Sweezy's work.

*snip*

*snip* Marxist theory could explain well the Depression of the 1930s, but fell short in dealing with a postwar period in which severe depression had not reoccurred. *snip* Given by our good Hammer (what a terrible pun, an affront to the worst of comedians): http://www.monthlyreview.org/1004lebowitz.htm

Yeah, trying to explain why there were no "big crashes" is a serious problem :rolleyes:

You're quoting what I quoted: said "Marxist theory" above INCLUDES Marx's isolated accumulation theory, even itself being a synthesis of what you said above. <_<

In my opinion, Sweezy's theory of monopoly capitalism is a load of bullocks.

Actually, his theories came after Michal Kalecki's link between Marx's theory and the theory of monopoly:

The first economist to connect the theory of crisis to the theory of monopoly was the Polish economist Michal Kalecki, who drew his inspiration from Marx and Rosa Luxemburg. Kalecki’s work in the early 1930s in Polish had developed, according to Joan Robinson and others in the circle of younger economists around Keynes, the main elements of the “Keynesian” revolution, in anticipation of Keynes himself. Kalecki moved to England in the mid-1930s where he helped further the transformation in economic analysis associated with Keynes. There he developed his concept of the “degree of monopoly,” which stood for the extent to which a firm was able to impose a price mark-up on prime production costs (workers’ wages and raw materials). In this way, Kalecki was able to link monopoly power to the distribution of national income, and to the sources of economic crisis and stagnation. Kalecki also explored the more general historical conditions affecting investment. In the closing paragraphs of his Theory of Economic Dynamics (1965) he concluded: “Long-run development is not inherent in the capitalist economy. Thus specific ‘developmental factors’ are required to sustain a long-run upward movement.”

Having beaten Keynes to the business cycle analysis and actually drawing upon Marx's thoughts on accumulation is a big plus for Kalecki.

However, one can retain the important characteristics of Marxist economics from volume 1 of Das Kapital relatively unscathed.

On that we agree, but on the other hand, didn't Marx struggle just to cobble up the last two volumes, anyhow? And what of Kautsky's Volume IV (you still didn't respond to HIS comments)?

ComradeRed

22nd April 2007, 08:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 10:47 pm
Citations? <_<
From Lenin's The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm); as far as Leninists still using dialectics today, you'll lure me into starting a semantics argument over what party today is Leninist, Trot, etc. etc. etc.

Frankly I haven't seen very many parties (all of which are various flavors of Leninism) in the U$ that aren't employing dialectics in one fashion or another.

And it's relatively difficult to argue that Marx didn't combine elements of different social sciences into his final theory; largely because you'd have to be blatantly ignorant of the Marxist paradigm, how it came about, or the predecessors to it.

I'm not saying that he didn't combine anything. It's just that his "final" theory - accumulation and crisis - opened new doors to connect it to other related phenomenon (monopoly capitalism and imperialism, the former being my primary focus thanks to selected portions of a certain "outline" ;) ). I disagree, it didn't "open doors" to "monopoly capitalism" and Lenin's theory of imperialism insomuch as "monopoly capitalism" and Lenin's theory of imperialism were based on faulty partial observations.

You're quoting what I quoted: said "Marxist theory" above INCLUDES Marx's isolated accumulation theory, even itself being a synthesis of what you said above. <_< No, I'm saying that the above is not a problem if one properly uses Marx's analysis of capitalist dynamics taking into account the disastrous effects of world war 2.

Being a physicist, I went to look at the empirical data of the U$ and unsurprisingly Marx's theory accurately predicted what happened.

In my opinion, Sweezy's theory of monopoly capitalism is a load of bullocks.Actually, his theories came after Michal Kalecki's link between Marx's theory and the theory of monopoly:
[...]
Having beaten Keynes to the business cycle analysis and actually drawing upon Marx's thoughts on accumulation is a big plus. Interesting but it still doesn't change my opinion.

However, one can retain the important characteristics of Marxist economics from volume 1 of Das Kapital relatively unscathed.

On that we agree, but on the other hand, didn't Marx struggle just to cobble up the last two volumes, anyhow? From my understanding, it was a random assortment of quotes that Engels organized and "glued together" with his own commentary.

And what of Kautsky's Volume IV (you still didn't respond to HIS comments)? I'm an old man, get off my lawn and let me just take a damn nap! :lol:

Seriously though, be patient, I have pressing things to attend with physics (as I said, I'm a physicist and I'm working on quantum gravity...but it looks like quantum theory has been falsified or at the very least demonstrated empirically as not a final theory, which is starting to demonstrate some of my work to be valid; it's very exciting!).

Die Neue Zeit

22nd April 2007, 08:24

The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true.

So that's the source of the distorted "The theory of Marx is all-powerful, because it is true" quote? Honestly, I do find disturbing Lenin's own usage of the words "doctrine," "omnipotent," etc.

I also see his mention of "German philosophy" along with "English political economy and French socialism" - the first of which you criticize. I must admit, though, that his placement of philosophy above political economy was quite questionable, even though Marx actually used Hegelian dialectics more than your so-called "Scottish philosophy."

Capital, created by the labour of the worker, crushes the worker, ruining small proprietors and creating an army of unemployed. In industry, the victory of large-scale production is immediately apparent, but the same phenomenon is also to be observed in agriculture, where the superiority of large-scale capitalist agriculture is enhanced, the use of machinery increases and the peasant economy, trapped by money-capital, declines and falls into ruin under the burden of its backward technique. The decline of small-scale production assumes different forms in agriculture, but the decline itself is an indisputable fact.

Summarizing some of pre-renegade Kautsky's words...

as far as Leninists still using dialectics today, you'll lure me into starting a semantics argument over what party today is Leninist, Trot, etc. etc. etc

There is no real "Leninist" party today, given our scattered number. :( The only folks sharing his revolutionary ideals (besides myself) are, ironically, Leo Uillean and the left-communist folks in the International Communist Current (and our mutual agreement on the need for an international socialist party with national "cells" to replace the current sectarian opportunists). I have stated before on this board that I'm an EX-Trot and an EX-Stalinist (in chronological order).

Seriously though, be patient, I have pressing things to attend with physics (as I said, I'm a physicist and I'm working on quantum gravity...but it looks like quantum theory has been falsified or at the very least demonstrated empirically as not a final theory, which is starting to demonstrate some of my work to be valid; it's very exciting!).

Good luck (in spite of our continued disagreements)! :cool:

Nothing Human Is Alien

22nd April 2007, 21:37

I'm not sure what exactly you're arguing, CDL. What exactly are you saying the leaders of the USSR were?

Yeah, I don't understand also your point CDL.

They were bureaucrats born out of the degeneration of the October Revolution.. not a new ruling class... They were similar to union bureaucrats.

If they were a "new bourgeois," they wouldn't have given up their state peacefully; because no propertied ruling class ever does or has.

What's really interesting is looking at the irc logs recording the news of the coup doesn't challenge the notion that the soldiers didn't know why they were mobilized, but does indicate that the SEC was fighting to keep the USSR together.

Listen, like I already said, the SEC wanted to implement capitalism too.. just in a different way (at a slower pace, and while keeping the 15 republics together).

It wasn't a worker's state, it was a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie!

Right.. soo then, let's assume this nonsense is true. You said they dressed their "bourgeois state" up in red flags (i.e. pretend it was a workers' state).. why would they do this? To make the workers think they had stake in the state (I'm going on your logic here). So, if they wanted to stay in power of that state, and it came down to a confrontation, why would they tell the workers to stay home, instead of mobilizing them (telling them they needed to defend their state) in order to stay in power??

No, the military defected from the senile ruling class to this radical middle class politician.

That's not exactly what happened.. but let's say it was for the sake of argument... Since when do the arm bodies of a bourgeois state go over to another class when not even a shot has been fired?

That would have been like the Cuban military immediately abandoning Batista when the Granma landed, and coming over to the guerrilla's side.

Gorbochov was under house arrest, and Yeltsin was besieged for several days until the military defected.

"Besieged"? :lol:

Yelstin set up barricades and organized a "countercoup."

The EC didn't do anything to stop him.. and indeed, when Washington made it clear that Yeltsin was there man to lead the capitalist counterrevolution, the EC fell apart.

No, they were the "old" bourgeoisie trying to hold together the old USSR together.

You're mincing your own words here. You said the bureaucrats in the USSR were the bourgeoisie (the new bourgeoisie that lead the October Revolution). That's what I'm talking about.

So you're arguing that the SEC represented them (the bourgeoisie).

But actually, what you just said was interesting .. you said the SEC "was the.. bourgeoisie." So now a committee of 8 people is a propertied ruling class. Pretty amazing!

Well, in late feudalism, the ruling class was senile, this is empirically observable. This is a characteristic of the late period of any mode of production.

Now you're saying the propertied ruling classes under feudalism gave up to the nascent bourgeoisie without a fight?!?

Throughout the history of the soviet union, they have concentrated capital in the hands of very few, exported capital at a rather high level, formed an international monopoly capitalist relation, and - along with the U$ - divided the world among the two of them.

Do these characteristics ring a bell?

They should, they are four out of the five characteristics for an "imperialist capitalist" state.

You know, the time when the ruling class begins its senility.

What a surprise, this is observably what happened.

The USSR was not imperialist in any shape or form. You clearly have no understanding of imperialism; but don't feel bad, you're not alone. This is for another thread though (this has come up recently elsewhere, and there was talk via PMs -- from both sides -- about starting a thread on it, maybe that should be done).

All right, semi-feudal, late feudal, potato patato. Does this really change anything though?

No.

You're the one that made a big deal of it being feudal not semi-feudal, so I'll leave it up to you to answer that.

The main point is that the material conditions for a worker state to come about were not present in 1917-1920 Russia.

I've all ready gone over this point in rather extensive detail.

And it's been refuted in extensive detail; by different people, and history itself.

You're applying historical materialism in a mechanical way that Marx would never have. This is the kind of thing that caused Marx to say "I am no Marxist."

Because of uneven development, imperialism, capitalism becoming the dominate social system, and a host of other things, socialist revolutions are possible in the imperialist oppressed countries (and do a great deal to bring the imperialist countries themselves closer to revolution).

I mean even right now, many of the countries that folks would call "third world" are at a level that some of the capitalist countries weren't at when Marx was alive (and he knew revolutions were possible in them then!).

The stage of imperialism both prolonged the existance of capitalism in the imperialist countries, and prevented its healthy development in the imperialist-oppressed countries.
Yes, that is often the assertion.

But Lenin's theory of imperialism is a bad theory since the criteria you are looking for is present inherently with Marx's Law of Accumulation over time.

In other words, there are no unique predictions for the theory. That's the indicator for a bad theory; it would be a better theory if it made different unique predictions, even if wrong empirically.

Right.. but Marx didn't completely foresee what imperialism would look like and what effects it would have. Lenin was able to analyze it more thoroughly (not in the least because he was alive when it arrose), and explain its effects.

Could you provide some quotes to substantiate this assertion? I've thumbed through my copy and couldn't find any indication of this in The Poverty of Philosophy.

Don't have time right now, have to run out. I'll come back later with some.

* * *

And there's more than people that say that the USSR have to answer.. if the USSR was already capitalist, and just switched to another form of capitalism, how do you explain things like the unprecedented drop in life expectancy (In 89 life expectancy for males was 64.2. Under Yeltsin it fell to 57). The capitalist ruling class suddenly become super brutal or what?

ComradeRed

23rd April 2007, 00:22

Suppose hypothetically that the Soviet Union were a worker's state. What's the consequence of this?

Well, it means that Marx and Engels were completely wrong in: The German Ideology, Das Kapital, amongst other works. This goes against simple empirical verification of their work.

Worse, you seriously propose that from a "semi-" (i.e. late) feudal society, that a worker's state could arise. There are a number of inconsistencies with Marx and Engels' writings that need to be reconciled if this were so.

But what makes this difficult is that you also have to explain what Marx and Engels explained, by an elementary correspondence principle of science: when you replace a paradigm that can explain phenomena, the new paradigm has to be reducible to the same or superior explanation.

The Leninist paradigm (or any paradigm that explains the USSR as a "worker's state") has not even attempted to do this. That's really bad for a paradigm to do!

Frankly, there are a number of empirically observed issues which have been so gleefully ignored by CdL and CyM (and to an extent, Hammer -- he is somewhat absolvable since he'd have to read through the previously made points). You three have brushed it aside (consciously dismissing it as "academic" :lol: or tacitly) but that really avoids the whole issue.

This is worst of all, as you don't even give anything to challenge the historical record except unsubstantiated assertions. Being a physicist this is most disappointing as it's like challenging an observation without another observation, rejecting an experiment without another experiment, a sort of refusal to adhere the basic practices of science.

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 22, 2007 12:37 pm

What's really interesting is looking at the irc logs recording the news of the coup doesn't challenge the notion that the soldiers didn't know why they were mobilized, but does indicate that the SEC was fighting to keep the USSR together.

Listen, like I already said, the SEC wanted to implement capitalism too.. just in a different way (at a slower pace, and while keeping the 15 republics together). The SEC wanted to maintain the pre-existing bourgeois apparatus. They employed it to defend itself.

There really hasn't been much empirical evidence to challenge this. You have asserted without much evidence that they were going to turn this "worker's state" into a capitalist state whilst preserving the 15 republics and so forth, but this is a little odd.

Why would the SEC possibly want to do this?

From the "worker's state" perspective, it's rather unclear.

From the "state capitalist" perspective, it's the senile ruling class trying to hold together a crumbling state.

So, if they wanted to stay in power of that state, and it came down to a confrontation, why would they tell the workers to stay home, instead of mobilizing them (telling them they needed to defend their state) in order to stay in power?? Could it possibly be that the workers are neither trained nor equipped to defend such a state, that there was a professional army there to do it in their place?

That's not exactly what happened.. but let's say it was for the sake of argument... Since when do the arm bodies of a bourgeois state go over to another class when not even a shot has been fired? You have a more serious problem here: with my explanation, it's merely a transition from one caste of bourgeoisie to another; with your explanation, it's the change of mode of productions without the shot of a bullet.

My explanation is basically a relatively peaceful collapse of one government; yours is a complete revolution without a shot fired.

So how do you reconcile this problem? It's a more serious challenge for the proponents of the "worker's state" theory since it seriously proposes a revolution without a bullet going off.

That would have been like the Cuban military immediately abandoning Batista when the Granma landed, and coming over to the guerrilla's side. No, it wouldn't be anything like this false analogy.

"Besieged"? :lol:

Yelstin set up barricades and organized a "countercoup."

The EC didn't do anything to stop him.. and indeed, when Washington made it clear that Yeltsin was there man to lead the capitalist counterrevolution, the EC fell apart. Proof? You've asserted this unsubstantiated proposition before too, also without proof.

You're mincing your own words here. You said the bureaucrats in the USSR were the bourgeoisie (the new bourgeoisie that lead the October Revolution). That's what I'm talking about. I'm in no way "mincing" my words here, I'm merely reiterating what has all ready been stated to answer certain questions which lead to further questions based on what has been said.

So you're arguing that the SEC represented them (the bourgeoisie).

But actually, what you just said was interesting .. you said the SEC "was the.. bourgeoisie." So now a committee of 8 people is a propertied ruling class. Pretty amazing! Yes, I didn't say the SEC is a subset of the bourgeoisie but that the bourgeoisie was the SEC.

Oh no, wait, I didn't!

Now you're saying the propertied ruling classes under feudalism gave up to the nascent bourgeoisie without a fight?!? No, I'm saying that the ruling class in late modes of production are senile.

After thinking about this a great deal, the "mystery" of the "1989-91 revolution" is no mystery at all: simply the collapse of a government.

The serious problem arises if we accept the notion that the Soviet Union were a "worker's state"!

How then is this "revolution", the "most peaceful revolution in history", explained?

The USSR was not imperialist in any shape or form. You clearly have no understanding of imperialism; but don't feel bad, you're not alone. Well, if you say so :lol:

And it's been refuted in extensive detail; by different people, and history itself. No, it really hasn't. That's the whole point of this thread.

And if different history has "refuted" it thus, why then the hesitation to cite any sources and figures?

You're applying historical materialism in a mechanical way that Marx would never have. This is the kind of thing that caused Marx to say "I am no Marxist." Forgive me Marx for I have sinned (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64930) :lol:

A serious problem that arises that is largely ignored by the community that says the USSR was a worker's state is that Marx was wrong and nothing has been formulated to replace his incorrect portions satisfactorily.

A serious challenge is that historical materialism is wrong empirically as well as his economics. What does that leave for him to be right about? Dialectics?! :lol:

Because of uneven development, imperialism, capitalism becoming the dominate social system, and a host of other things, socialist revolutions are possible in the imperialist oppressed countries (and do a great deal to bring the imperialist countries themselves closer to revolution). Perhaps, but this isn't too satisfying an answer as to why capitalism has become the "dominate social system".

Marx conjectured that capitalism would necessarily replace the feudal mode of production for a host of reasons in Das Kapital, vol. I.

Curiously, they seem to mirror the moves of the Soviet mode of production from 1920 to about 1945!

But this is mere coincidence, it doesn't mean that: because the material conditions were remarkably similar to other capitalist revolutions, and the results and method of this revolution being done was remarkably similar to other capitalist revolutions that the Soviet revolution was by any stretch of the imagination a bourgeois one. Or at least that's what the apologists would like me to believe.

I mean even right now, many of the countries that folks would call "third world" are at a level that some of the capitalist countries weren't at when Marx was alive (and he knew revolutions were possible in them then!). So that's the reason why he repeatedly said over and over that worker's revolutions occur in late capitalism <_<

Right.. but Marx didn't completely foresee what imperialism would look like and what effects it would have. Lenin was able to analyze it more thoroughly (not in the least because he was alive when it arrose), and explain its effects. The problem, as I've emphasized before, is that the "effects" that Lenin identified were identified independent of him by Marx and Engels as signs of capitalist development.

That makes it relatively difficult to identify the effects of imperialism, unless you reject a great deal of Marx and Engels.

Since there is no advantage to do so, that makes Lenin's theory of imperialism a bad theory.

IF Lenin's theory made some prediction that Marx and Engels didn't cover, even if Lenin's theory's predictions were wrong, THEN Lenin's theory would have been a better theory as one could objectively say "Ah, this is working just as Lenin said" or "Ah, this isn't going at all according to Lenin's prediction".

Don't have time right now, have to run out. I'll come back later with some. Okey dokey.

And there's more than people that say that the USSR have to answer.. if the USSR was already capitalist, and just switched to another form of capitalism, how do you explain things like the unprecedented drop in life expectancy (In 89 life expectancy for males was 64.2. Under Yeltsin it fell to 57). The capitalist ruling class suddenly become super brutal or what? Did you forget that you are free to live in capitalism if you can afford it?

Since most couldn't afford it, they simply well died.

It is irrelevant to whether the bourgeoisie "have a heart" or not.

Die Neue Zeit

23rd April 2007, 00:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:22 pm
Suppose hypothetically that the Soviet Union were a worker's state. What's the consequence of this?

Well, it means that Marx and Engels were completely wrong in: The German Ideology, Das Kapital, amongst other works. This goes against simple empirical verification of their work.

Worse, you seriously propose that from a "semi-" (i.e. late) feudal society, that a worker's state could arise. There are a number of inconsistencies with Marx and Engels' writings that need to be reconciled if this were so.
You are somewhat right in your contention. However, the sectarian clashes between Trotskyists and Stalinists have made you aware of the subtle yet critical difference between Lenin and Trotsky in some of my threads. The proposal of going from a late feudal society to socialist society was TROTSKY's (permanent revolution), not Lenin's ("revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry").

The Leninist paradigm (or any paradigm that explains the USSR as a "worker's state") has not even attempted to do this. That's really bad for a paradigm to do!

Frankly, there are a number of empirically observed issues which have been so gleefully ignored by CdL and CyM (and to an extent, Hammer -- he is somewhat absolvable since he'd have to read through the previously made points). You three have brushed it aside (consciously dismissing it as "academic" :lol: or tacitly) but that really avoids the whole issue.

Again, the genuine "Leninist" paradigm is that the Soviet republic was a "revolutionary-democratic" state from 1917 to 1924. The idea of it being an exclusively "workers' state" is absurd, given the alliance with the peasantry.

This then ties back to my "revolutionary stamocap" thread, and my conversation with a left-communist on this board where he said it isn't really that (given workers' control). October was a revolutionary-democratic revolution, in spite of the "socialist" appellation (contrast this with the bourgeois-democratic February). Nonetheless, contemporary Marxists such as Luxemburg, Lenin, Gramsci, etc. all agreed rightfully that socialist revolution does NOT lead immediately to socialism, with the transitional period in between.

A "revolutionary-democratic" period is a revolutionary compression of Time Points A through C. Conceded: the workers have only partial control in spite of the small-s soviet mechanism (antithesis). On the other hand, you don't have Big Business capitalists with millions and billions of dollars of wealth (thesis). The uncanny synthesis: managers ("coordinators" as per reformist utopian Michael Albert) under a wage/salary system.

ComradeRed

23rd April 2007, 01:10

Originally posted by Hammer+April 22, 2007 03:32 pm--> (Hammer @ April 22, 2007 03:32 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 11:22 pm
Suppose hypothetically that the Soviet Union were a worker's state. What's the consequence of this?

Well, it means that Marx and Engels were completely wrong in: The German Ideology, Das Kapital, amongst other works. This goes against simple empirical verification of their work.

Worse, you seriously propose that from a "semi-" (i.e. late) feudal society, that a worker's state could arise. There are a number of inconsistencies with Marx and Engels' writings that need to be reconciled if this were so.
You are somewhat right in your contention. However, the sectarian clashes between Trotskyists and Stalinists have made you aware of the subtle yet critical difference between Lenin and Trotsky in some of my threads. The proposal of going from a late feudal society to socialist society was TROTSKY's (permanent revolution), not Lenin's ("revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry").[/b]
The problem that I have with this, as I've stated and tried to emphasize, there is no "correspondence principle" within the Leninist paradigm.

Indeed, there is little reason to suppose that the Marxist paradigm needs to be reformed based on the objections of the Leninist paradigm, based on empirical observation with the tools of Marxism.

The "big contribution" of the Leninist paradigm as a "replacement" for the Marxist one is supposedly the theory of imperialism...which is, as I've repeatedly emphasized, a bad theory.

To complicate manners, there is little reason to rid the tools of Marxism as presented in the given text IF one applies them.

Which returns us to a complete reiteration of my original point.

Again, the genuine "Leninist" paradigm is that the Soviet republic was a "revolutionary-democratic" state from 1917 to 1924. The idea of it being an exclusively "workers' state" is absurd, given the alliance with the peasantry. Well that's great...but that really doesn't challenge a deal of my points (viz. the lack of empiricism).

(And accepting the USSR as a "degenerate worker's state" is still accepting that it was a "worker's state".)

This then ties back to my "revolutionary stamocap" thread, and my conversation with a left-communist on this board where he said it isn't really that (given workers' control). October was a revolutionary-democratic revolution, in spite of the "socialist" appellation (contrast this with the bourgeois-democratic February). Nonetheless, contemporary Marxists such as Luxemburg, Lenin, Gramsci, etc. all agreed rightfully that socialist revolution does NOT lead immediately to socialism, with the transitional period in between. So the common wisdom of the "contemporary Marxists" is that after the revolution there must be capitalism still.

Is this really true?

Based on the historical record of this theory in practice, it appears to fail.

Frankly, post-revolutionary society has to hit the ground running...not crawling.

From day one after the revolution, the workers need to be exercising power...not some group of "baby sitters" that keep the seat of power warm!

Die Neue Zeit

23rd April 2007, 01:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 12:10 am
From day one after the revolution, the workers need to be exercising power...not some group of "baby sitters" that keep the seat of power warm!
Where did I mention "baby sitters" when I mentioned the tricameral structure of workers' control (communal councils, soviets, and factory committees)? <_<

THAT was the reason why the aforementioned left-communist said that what I called "revolutionary stamocap" isn't really stamocap at all, but already DP!

As for your case against the vanguard party, answer this: what about companies who anticipate long-term future demand and innovate new products that are bought by consumers? Workers cannot spontaneously revolt (refer to Luxemburg's spontaneity vs. organization dialectic), nor can there be a Blanquist solution (which you so erroneously "link" to the RSDLP(B)). Say's Law was absurd in an economic sphere full of profits (his equilibrium law being based on zero-profits), but in the non-profitable socio-political sphere, "supply creates its own demand": hence revolutionary theory.

So the common wisdom of the "contemporary Marxists" is that after the revolution there must be capitalism still.

So what is the dictatorship of the proletariat, then, if Marx himself did not deem it to be socialist? <_<

RGacky3

23rd April 2007, 03:23

I would call State Capitalist economically the same as fascist (the United states would be incuded in this with the military-industrial complex), where the Capitalists and the State work together to achieve each others aims.

The USSR, and the states that followed that model ARE socialist, the existence Capital is not the essence of Capitalism, Capital can be anything from $100 to a factory to a computer, its just things you use in production, Capitalism is about private property and the market system (which includes the labor market). Socialism (braodly) is a society who's economy runs on Social needs rather than Profit, under those concepts the USSR could be called Socialist because there was no profit motive, and the state claimed to be running things for the good of the Society. I don't think its genuine, in the same way the United States is'nt a genuine Democracy, but that does'nt make the United States a Dictatorship.

ComradeRed

23rd April 2007, 04:37

Originally posted by Hammer+April 22, 2007 04:18 pm--> (Hammer @ April 22, 2007 04:18 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 12:10 am
From day one after the revolution, the workers need to be exercising power...not some group of "baby sitters" that keep the seat of power warm!
Where did I mention "baby sitters" when I mentioned the tricameral structure of workers' control (communal councils, soviets, and factory committees)? <_<[/b]This is, again, where my bias as a physicist presents itself and - dealing with the presentation of an abstract thesis - desperately look for some empirical experiment.

Looking to the USSR, this really has not been the case of "worker's councils" running the show. Nor has it happened in China.

IT sounds very appealing in theory, and if it ever happened in practice I would support it...but all too often Leninists are quick to call something "run by workers' councils".

The main point that I make does not seem to be contested by you in theory that the worker's should run the show after the revolution; but you suggest allowing "capitalism without the capitalists" to be the method...as though this couldn't possibly have the material conditions of capitalism and thus a reincarnation of class society! :lol:

To ignore the material conditions created by "capitalism without the capitalists" is to ignore Marx's work, which would be a rather silly thing to do after paying so much attention to it.

As for your case against the vanguard party, answer this: what about companies who anticipate long-term future demand and innovate new products that are bought by consumers? What about them?

Workers cannot spontaneously revolt (refer to Luxemburg's spontaneity vs. organization dialectic), nor can there be a Blanquist solution (which you so erroneously "link" to the RSDLP(B)). Why?

It's not as though everyone wakes up one day and says "Capitalism is shit" and then "spontaneously" overthrows capitalism.

Revolutions occur, as any event in material reality, based on the material conditions at that time. It is not by mere "chance" that revolutions occur.

One rather disturbing underlying assumption is that "The workers are sheep" and thus "incapable" of emancipating themselves.

If you hold such a position, why not become a capitalist? Such a position allows for a meritocratic view of society, the sheep sink to the bottom whereas the wolves rise to the top.

There is - in practice - little difference between a bourgeois politician "shepherd" and a communist "shepherd".

Such a supposition seems reactionary in character.

Say's Law was absurd in an economic sphere full of profits (his equilibrium law being based on zero-profits), but in the non-profitable socio-political sphere, "supply creates its own demand": hence revolutionary theory. Say's Law is absurd in every sphere.

The problem is that it's a linear "Law", and linearity is all too often a mere approximation to a better approximation (there are countless examples of this).

So what is the dictatorship of the proletariat, then, if Marx himself did not deem it to be socialist? <_< Well, in the most literal sense, Marx clearly meant to draw a comparison to "bourgeois democracy" - the dictatorship of the capitalist class.

Things get a little tricky when we realize that the state is simply the organ of class rule, but after the revolution the aim is to abolish classes.

So is the "dictatorship of the proletariat" a state or not?! Well "sort of" but "not really".

That is, however, the subject for a completely different topic.

Die Neue Zeit

24th April 2007, 02:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:37 am
Why?

It's not as though everyone wakes up one day and says "Capitalism is shit" and then "spontaneously" overthrows capitalism.

Revolutions occur, as any event in material reality, based on the material conditions at that time. It is not by mere "chance" that revolutions occur.

One rather disturbing underlying assumption is that "The workers are sheep" and thus "incapable" of emancipating themselves.

If you hold such a position, why not become a capitalist? Such a position allows for a meritocratic view of society, the sheep sink to the bottom whereas the wolves rise to the top.

There is - in practice - little difference between a bourgeois politician "shepherd" and a communist "shepherd".

Such a supposition seems reactionary in character.
Ever heard of "hegemony" and "counter-hegemony" before?

ComradeRed

24th April 2007, 03:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:04 pm
Ever heard of "hegemony" and "counter-hegemony" before?
Referring to Gramsci's theory, I assume (although it has been used before by Lenin and others)?

Gramsci's work has always struck me as having a strong idealist slant...as though he took bits and pieces of Marx and decoupled it from reality.

One of the more serious problems with it is that Gramsci had associated the term "hegemony" with "intellectual and moral leadership" of a "historic bloc" of classes...Gramsci thought this working class would be capable of establish a new state.

This reeks of idealism, as though the working class had the magical power to ignore material conditions!

Not even the "iron discipline" of the Bolsheviks could defy material reality!

Largely due to the commonly ignored reason: no amount of idealism, disciple, etc. can overturn the material conditions given to us by history.

Further, my points still hold: if you genuinely hold such a position, why not become a capitalist?

If the workers were truly sheep, then don't they deserve to be slaughtered...what else are sheep good for?!

Frankly, no amount of idealism could justify such a reactionary position.

Die Neue Zeit

24th April 2007, 04:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:58 am
Further, my points still hold: if you genuinely hold such a position, why not become a capitalist?

If the workers were truly sheep, then don't they deserve to be slaughtered...what else are sheep good for?!

Frankly, no amount of idealism could justify such a reactionary position.
^^^ I'm not saying that workers are incapable of emancipating themselves. I'm saying that, in the increasingly dumbed-down consumer society, they are increasingly incapable of educating themselves (lack of free time, class morale/motivation, as well as dumbed-down media matters). The international vanguard party is dedicated to this education, as well as professional revolution strategy.

[The latter because I can't stomach the idea of a revolution implementing Mao's human-wave crap, which goes right back to your "deserve to be slaughtered" comments. Without professional strategy during the revolution, the "slaughtering of sheep" which you so condemn WILL occur.]

Gramsci's work has always struck me as having a strong idealist slant...as though he took bits and pieces of Marx and decoupled it from reality.

One of the more serious problems with it is that Gramsci had associated the term "hegemony" with "intellectual and moral leadership" of a "historic bloc" of classes...Gramsci thought this working class would be capable of establish a new state.

It is true that he wasn't a materialist, and that the "historic bloc of classes" may resemble too much Stalin's "non-antagonistic classes" crap, but you really should read up Jonathan Joseph's Lenin's Concept of Hegemony (http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages///Back/Wnext3/Hegemony.html).

ComradeRed

24th April 2007, 05:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 07:04 pm
^^^ I'm not saying that workers are incapable of emancipating themselves. I'm saying that, in the increasingly dumbed-down consumer society, they are incapable of educating themselves.
People are now completely incapable of learning without being held by the hand by the vanguard? :lol:

Well, the first question that I must ask is: is this true?

The answer is no. Rather anti-climactic of a response, isn't it?

First, I suppose one might argue that workers are "incapable" of "taking the initiative" to educate themselves.

Well, that's a nice assertion (there have been plenty made defending the USSR as a worker's state thus far, the topic of conversation supposedly; all of which have no evidence backing them up)...but where's the proof?

As though part of the brain ceases to function when one enters the proletarian class :lol:

And even more comical, only the "vanguard" could make it work again!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Perhaps what is meant is that there is no motivation for a prole to learn...but even then there are some serious issues with this. For example, motivation is completely irrelevant to learning; or better yet people are naturally curious and they will "learn" if by nook or by crook.

But would the "vanguard" instill motivation to learn? Again, no. No one can "force" us to learn anything we don't wish, an elite "iron-disciplined" "vanguard" wouldn't change anything.

Which leaves us either accepting the proposition that the workers are sheep and need to be led to their emancipation by a "vanguard", OR the workers are not sheep and fully capable of emancipating themselves with the right material conditions (of course).

It is true that he wasn't a materialist, and that the "historic bloc of classes" may resemble too much Stalin's "non-antagonistic classes" crap, but you really should read up Jonathan Joseph's Lenin's Concept of Hegemony. I'll look into it when I have the time.

Die Neue Zeit

24th April 2007, 05:32

^^^ Read my corrective elaborations above. Also, consider the vacillating European worker between far-left and far-right parties (the need for a NON-parliamentary vanguard for an anti-fascist front, among MANY other things). <_<

there have been plenty made defending the USSR as a worker's state thus far, the topic of conversation supposedly

Did you read my response on its "revolutionary-democratic" nature as compared to a pure "workers' state"? <_<

ComradeRed

24th April 2007, 07:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:32 pm
^^^ Read my corrective elaborations above.
Well, the question that immediately presents itself is: Does this change anything?

Yet another question with the answer No!

There are three main points made which ought to be inspected for their respective validity here: "lack of free time, class morale/motivation, as well as dumbed-down media matters."

How severe is this "lack of time"?

Working in the US alone for simplicity (this can be used in Europe or anywhere else, but the US presents its statistics readily), suppose we have a prole household vie for at least the poverty level (2006 Definitions of Poverty Level for Households (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh06.html)).

One person working minimum wage, 9 to 5, 5 days a week. That's an 8 hour work day, 40 hour work week, 2080 hours worked per year. At $6 per hour, that's $12480 per year...well above the poverty level for one person.

For a family of two working parents making minimum wage, working 9 to 5, 5 days a week, $6 per hour. That's simply twice the figure all ready calculated, $24960 per year. This is roughly enough to support five people at poverty level.

Supposing a worker sleeps 8 hours a day, there are 8 hours a day that are unaccounted for. In 8 hours a day, with an adequate supply of books, one can learn a great deal in a few years.

So this "lack of time" doesn't seem to be a great problem.

Class Morale/Motivation...meaning?

This sounds like Class Consciousness, but I don't really know what is meant by the term. If it is class consciousness, how the hell does that have to interfere with educating one's self?

Last, but certainly not least, the "dumbed down media" point.

How does this exactly prevent a worker educating herself? It would obviously interfere with how she formulates her opinion a bit...but preventing her from educating herself all together?!

This seems a bit extreme!

And empirically questionable to say the least! It does however affect how the prole's consciousness is...e.g. Fox news cannot be anything other than a reactionary influence, mirroring the thoughts of the ruling class of course.

But does it prevent or increase difficulties in a worker educating herself?

How could it?!

That is rather unclear how it renders a worker "incapable" of educating herself! Perhaps you could elaborate?

Did you read my response on its "revolutionary-democratic" nature as compared to a pure "workers' state"? <_< If you've edited it into one of your posts after I've replied to it, then probably not.

Die Neue Zeit

26th April 2007, 03:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 06:04 am
One person working minimum wage, 9 to 5, 5 days a week. That's an 8 hour work day, 40 hour work week, 2080 hours worked per year. At $6 per hour, that's $12480 per year...well above the poverty level for one person.

For a family of two working parents making minimum wage, working 9 to 5, 5 days a week, $6 per hour. That's simply twice the figure all ready calculated, $24960 per year. This is roughly enough to support five people at poverty level.
^^^ Don't trust government stats. Rentals costs are spiralling, not to mention wasted payroll taxes and food costs. Most (if not all) workers near poverty can't save. Heck, even petit-bourgeois folks (like myself and most other "great" socialist revolutionaries) can't save enough of their money with the abnormally low interest rates.

Supposing a worker sleeps 8 hours a day, there are 8 hours a day that are unaccounted for. In 8 hours a day, with an adequate supply of books, one can learn a great deal in a few years.

So this "lack of time" doesn't seem to be a great problem.

Class Morale/Motivation...meaning?

This sounds like Class Consciousness, but I don't really know what is meant by the term. If it is class consciousness, how the hell does that have to interfere with educating one's self?

If only you were correct (really, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, instead together laying the building blocks for socialism). :(

Last, but certainly not least, the "dumbed down media" point.

How does this exactly prevent a worker educating herself? It would obviously interfere with how she formulates her opinion a bit...but preventing her from educating herself all together?!

This seems a bit extreme!

Since you referred to women, ever considered the cynical opinions behind women's rights and dropping mandatory retirement? That expands the workforce, but increases alienation and decreases free time for education (work, chores, sleep, taking care of kids, etc.).

[Mind you, the idea of being against such progressive measures is absurd.]

Besides, more and more education is geared towards "practical" purposes (ie, getting a job in the field of your study, either while studying or upon getting your degree). That knocks off time to gain "class consciousness."

Now, considering my other responses:

The international vanguard party is dedicated to this education, as well as professional revolution strategy.

[The latter because I can't stomach the idea of a revolution implementing Mao's human-wave crap, which goes right back to your "deserve to be slaughtered" comments. Without professional strategy during the revolution, the "slaughtering of sheep" which you so condemn WILL occur.]

The last part of my "revolutionary-democratic" remarks:

A "revolutionary-democratic" period is a revolutionary compression of Time Points A through C. Conceded: the workers have only partial control in spite of the small-s soviet mechanism (antithesis). On the other hand, you don't have Big Business capitalists with millions and billions of dollars of wealth (thesis). The uncanny synthesis: managers ("coordinators" as per reformist utopian Michael Albert) under a wage/salary system. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65473&view=findpost&p=1292303949)

ComradeRed

26th April 2007, 03:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:02 pm
^^^ Don't trust government stats. Rentals costs are spiralling, not to mention wasted payroll taxes and food costs. Most (if not all) workers near poverty can't save. My point had no relevance as to whether a worker "saves money" or not, only to the fact that a fellow making minimum wage makes enough to survive with time enough to read 8 hours a day (supposing he reads all 8 hours!).

Class Morale/Motivation...meaning?

This sounds like Class Consciousness, but I don't really know what is meant by the term. If it is class consciousness, how the hell does that have to interfere with educating one's self?If only you were correct (really, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, instead together laying the building blocks for socialism). :( Eh? Am I right that you mean class consciousness or not?!

Last, but certainly not least, the "dumbed down media" point.

How does this exactly prevent a worker educating herself? It would obviously interfere with how she formulates her opinion a bit...but preventing her from educating herself all together?!

This seems a bit extreme!Since you referred to women, ever considered the cynical opinions behind women's rights and dropping mandatory retirement? That expands the workforce, but increases alienation and decreases free time for education (work, chores, sleep, taking care of kids, etc.). <_< Traditionally since the 1960s "She" is read as "He or she", it's not specifically targeting women as more susceptible than men to the falsities of the media.

Besides, more and more education is geared towards "practical" purposes (ie, getting a job in the field of your study, either while studying or upon getting your degree). That knocks off time to gain "class consciousness." <_< I seem to recall something Mark Twain once said: I never let schooling get in the way of my education!

When I speak of education, I don't mean enrolling in courses. Far from it!

Speaking from experience, a great deal of my (indeed my sole) education has been from reading books alone.

And hell, if I could do that, anyone could do it. (And I did it with math and physics, with no knowledge of physics and only knowledge of algebra! :o)

You'd be surprised what you can learn from simply reading a book.

Now, considering my other responses:

The international vanguard party is dedicated to this education, as well as professional revolution strategy.

[The latter because I can't stomach the idea of a revolution implementing Mao's human-wave crap, which goes right back to your "deserve to be slaughtered" comments. Without professional strategy during the revolution, the "slaughtering of sheep" which you so condemn WILL occur.]The last part of my "revolutionary-democratic" remarks:

A "revolutionary-democratic" period is a revolutionary compression of Time Points A through C. Conceded: the workers have only partial control in spite of the small-s soviet mechanism (antithesis). On the other hand, you don't have Big Business capitalists with millions and billions of dollars of wealth (thesis). The uncanny synthesis: managers ("coordinators" as per reformist utopian Michael Albert) under a wage/salary system. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65473&view=findpost&p=1292303949) What the hell are you talking about?

And I think you switched up the "thesis" and "antithesis" (although how you assign such qualities to propositions is simply little more than a priori word games <_<).

Naturally, I reject your reasoning behind your (for lack of a better word) proof, and your proof itself outright.

I reject your conclusion on empirical principles that it didn't work out before, why should we expect the same thing to work?

As for the theoretical reasons, it doesn't really seem to change the material conditions of society by surgically removing a class. The class would simply "reincarnate" since the material conditions allow for its regeneration.

Die Neue Zeit

26th April 2007, 04:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 02:46 am

Class Morale/Motivation...meaning?

This sounds like Class Consciousness, but I don't really know what is meant by the term. If it is class consciousness, how the hell does that have to interfere with educating one's self?If only you were correct (really, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, instead together laying the building blocks for socialism). :( Eh? Am I right that you mean class consciousness or not?!
Yep. :)

I seem to recall something Mark Twain once said: I never let schooling get in the way of my education!

When I speak of education, I don't mean enrolling in courses. Far from it!

Speaking from experience, a great deal of my (indeed my sole) education has been from reading books alone.

To be fair, I read analytical articles on the Internet, and was a big buff for WWII documentaries (which go beyond the tripe of History 12, which I was spared the misery of taking).

And I think you switched up the "thesis" and "antithesis" (although how you assign such qualities to propositions is simply little more than a priori word games

Not at all. Chronologically speaking, Big Business (thesis) comes before the revolutionary-democratic soviet mechanism (antithesis), and both lead to a synthesis of managers.

Of course, in the modern era, where we've gone past primitive accumulation, "revolutionary democracy" isn't needed anymore; just straight socialist revolution (because managers now share the same class interests of Big Business).

ComradeRed

26th April 2007, 04:16

Originally posted by Hammer+April 25, 2007 07:04 pm--> (Hammer @ April 25, 2007 07:04 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 02:46 am
Eh? Am I right that you mean class consciousness or not?!
Yep. :)[/b] I still fail to see how class consciousness could possibly affect intelligence.

I seem to recall something Mark Twain once said: I never let schooling get in the way of my education!

When I speak of education, I don't mean enrolling in courses. Far from it!

Speaking from experience, a great deal of my (indeed my sole) education has been from reading books alone.To be fair, I read analytical articles on the Internet, and was a big buff for WWII documentaries (which go beyond the tripe of History 12, which I was spared the misery of taking). See? It's nothing impossible, as you know from experience.

And I think you switched up the "thesis" and "antithesis" (although how you assign such qualities to propositions is simply little more than a priori word gamesNot at all. Chronologically speaking, Big Business (thesis) comes before the revolutionary-democratic soviet mechanism (antithesis), and both lead to a synthesis of managers. There is still that problem of identifying the properties of propositions which make them a thesis, how to derive from a given proposition an antithesis, and how to combine a thesis proposition and an antithesis proposition into a synthesis proposition.

What's really bad is that no two dialecticians can reproduce the same results :o

It's like Feng Shui in many respects: non-reproducible results, metaphysical word-game "reasoning", hand-wavy proofs, etc.

Frankly, why not just ditch the bullocks?! That would be the more revolutionary approach to things!

Of course, in the modern era, where we've gone past primitive accumulation, "revolutionary democracy" isn't needed anymore; just straight socialist revolution (because managers now share the same class interests of Big Business). Which begs the question what's the point?

For pre-capitalist modes of production to magically jump to socialism?! Things don't work that way!

History has shown things to not work this way!

It turns out, much to the dislike of Leninists, Marx was right!

Which would mean that this is little more than a glorified bourgeois-industrialization period for a capitalist mode of production.

Such is life.

Die Neue Zeit

26th April 2007, 04:31

^^^ Um, you're falling for the same clap-trap that liberals fall for: the alleged intention to skip capitalism. <_<

If Lenin had turned to Trotsky's "permanent revolution," then and only then would you and they have a point. But no - "revolutionary-democratic" tasks first (capitalism less the Big Business capitalists PLUS more managerial power), while the socialist tasks come MUCH later (which was what he said).

ComradeRed

26th April 2007, 04:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:31 pm
^^^ Um, you're falling for the same clap-trap that liberals fall for: the alleged intention to skip capitalism. <_<

If Lenin had turned to Trotsky's "permanent revolution," then and only then would you and they have a point. But no - "revolutionary-democratic" tasks first (capitalism less the Big Business capitalists PLUS more managerial power), while the socialist tasks come MUCH later (which was what he said).
No, I'm not, allow me to elucidate.

We both can agree (I hope) that capitalism precedes communism.

"Stamocap" is undoubtedly capitalism...Russia, from the figures, was still feudal with 80% of its population peasantry and so forth.

Speaking strictly from an empirical view on history, that was going to happen.

I reiterate: there would be NO WAY to go from pre-capitalist modes of production to sociailism.

That's why the USSR was capitalist.

Some might like to argue that it went from a "stamocap" to a "socialism" to a "degenerate workers' state" which is rather comical...it was the most peaceful series of revolutions ever in history where the ruling class simply handed over the reigns of power and the means of production!

Which would then contradict Marxist theory.

Thus it seems to me that the whole notion of "stamocap" is antiquated for pre-capitalist modes of production to "modernize" to relatively newer standards of living.

That's how it's been used historically.

Or else empiricism (and/or Marx) is wrong, which is what our dear friends CdL and CyM would like. Being a scientist, I refuse to let go of empiricism; and being a Marxist, there is little reason to give up Marxist theory.

That is what I meant.

Die Neue Zeit

26th April 2007, 05:26

^^^ I don't have a problem with what you said (thanks for clarifying), but if you say that stamocap is antiquated for pre-capitalist modes of production, where does it fit in the first place? Where does MY pyramidal ownership structure proposal fit in?

[My guess is that you'll add one more revolution after my "revolutionary stamocap," in spite of what I said in that thread.]

And what about Kautsky (and my agriculture thread in History)?

ComradeRed

26th April 2007, 05:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:26 pm
^^^ I don't have a problem with what you said (thanks for clarifying), but if you say that stamocap is antiquated for pre-capitalist modes of production, where does it fit in the first place? Where does MY proposal fit in?

[My guess is that you'll add one more revolution after my "revolutionary stamocap," in spite of what I said in that thread.]
Your proposal doesn't fit in for states in the capitalist mode of production, that's one thing I know for certain here.

Frankly, as I've said in the stamocap thread, we don't know what material conditions will cause the revolution.

I'm guessing that it would have to deal with "nanotechnology"...and if that's the case, then "scarcity" would become antiquated along with capitalism.

Anything I tell you based on that premise of nanotechnology being the material condition to bring about the revolution would be pure speculation...just as Kautsky's book you referenced was pure speculation relative to the material conditions of the late 19th century.

The whole notion of "stamocap" is simply a sort of scheme to industrialize quickly (and empirically it works phenomenally well).

The problem is of course that there is this class of bourgeoisie created that want to essentially privatize the means of production so they can get more profit from this industrialized nation (and, after reading some technical papers on the subject, that's exactly what the USSR did).

The guess that Kautsky et al. gave about "stamocap" was based on the material conditions mind you of a not too industrialized Austria.

That's what gave rise to the idea of "industrialization" and so forth.

For it's designed purpose, it works...just too well.

As for where your proposal fits in, of stamocap in the future I presume?

Well, there are a few "quasi-industrialized" countries that it might work in...specifically in the middle-east.

But for "stamocap's" prospects in the industrialized capitalist mode of production's future, it's simply nonexistent.

Die Neue Zeit

26th April 2007, 05:47

^^^ Why? :rolleyes: The ownership structure is an expression of public ownership. It's kinda odd to say that the best route to socialization is a zig-zag from public ownership to privatization to back again, no?

My take:

At the very least, my proposal is very much capable of creating the means to end practical scarcity (the final "industrial" push). With industrial farming, for example, the question is: do they really operate "better" in private hands than in state hands? The same thing goes with R&D towards nanotech, and even moreso with multinational monopolies.

Why? The major concerns here are additional leverage (first, the state can print reasonable amounts of additional currency without inflation concerns to finance the nationalizations, while tossing the leverage ball to the general public) and the short-term-mindedness of most shareholders, execs, and managers (focusing merely on quarterly results instead of five-year plans).

Besides, Russia is doing that right now with energy, aviation, and shipbuilding - among other sectors. Norway is doing that with its energy, too.

EDIT: Also, the development of the modern corporation is a characteristic of LATE capitalism, NOT developing capitalism. As an organizational mechanism, it is certainly more effective and efficient than ministries, state "committees" and commissions, design bureaus, etc. Not every organizational mechanism has to be dismantled in the transition to socialism.

ComradeRed

27th April 2007, 02:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:47 pm
^^^ Why? :rolleyes:
Why what?

The ownership structure is an expression of public ownership. It's kinda odd to say that the best route to socialization is a zig-zag from public ownership to privatization to back again, no? I'm saying that "public ownership" never happened.

And it can't ever happen prior to a certain industrialization which then generates the material conditions for its existence.

My take:

At the very least, my proposal is very much capable of creating the means to end practical scarcity (the final "industrial" push). With industrial farming, for example, the question is: do they really operate "better" in private hands than in state hands? The same thing goes with R&D towards nanotech, and even moreso with multinational monopolies. Irrelevant.

"Stamocap" or some other "public-ized" form of ownership may very well develop nanotechnology...this would however go against Marx's explanation of things.

I guess it's just my "evil, vulgar, stagist" interpretation of Marx's writings (you know, the literal interpretation) that capitalism has to precede communism.

History has shown this to be the case, and I think there is very little that can be done about it. The best thing to do is to raise the class consciousness of the workers, and prepare them for when they overthrow capitalism rather than some small, conspiracist, blanquist-clone vanguard.

EDIT: Also, the development of the modern corporation is a characteristic of LATE capitalism, NOT developing capitalism. As an organizational mechanism, it is certainly more effective and efficient than ministries, state "committees" and commissions, design bureaus, etc. Not every organizational mechanism has to be dismantled in the transition to socialism. Why?

This seems to be little more than a mere conjecture...and as I've said no one's crystal ball can see that clearly into the future!

Die Neue Zeit

27th April 2007, 03:08

I guess it's just my "evil, vulgar, stagist" interpretation of Marx's writings (you know, the literal interpretation) that capitalism has to precede communism.

You sounded a bit like a Menshevik there, though, and what's your opinion on them, their two-stage stuff, and their opposition to "primitive" stamocap in Russia?

[I remind you of the three future options for Russia at that time: Menshevik "two-stageism," Trotsky's permanent revolution (the idea of jumping right into socialism as quickly as possible), and Lenin's "revolutionary-democratic" proposal of "primitive" stamocap (as contrasted with my "revolutionary stamocap" transitory period).]

"Stamocap" or some other "public-ized" form of ownership may very well develop nanotechnology...this would however go against Marx's explanation of things.

In what way? Like you said, "stamocap" is still capitalism. <_<

ComradeRed

27th April 2007, 03:38

Originally posted by Hammer+April 26, 2007 06:08 pm--> (Hammer @ April 26, 2007 06:08 pm)
I guess it's just my "evil, vulgar, stagist" interpretation of Marx's writings (you know, the literal interpretation) that capitalism has to precede communism.You sounded a bit like a Menshevik there, though, and what's your opinion on them, their two-stage stuff, and their opposition to "primitive" stamocap in Russia?[/b]Just an observation: you are really fascinated by my opinion on a great host of things, I never realized I wasn't a boring old fart :lol:

Anyways I haven't had the opportunity to read from a great deal of Menshevik thinkers so I can't comment too much in detail.

I know I've been called a Menshevik many times as a supposed insult, so I guess we're both equally as hated by Maoists :lol:

I'll read up on some Menshevik thinker's writings and get back to you on this.

"Stamocap" or some other "public-ized" form of ownership may very well develop nanotechnology...this would however go against Marx's explanation of things.In what way? Like you said, "stamocap" is still capitalism. <_< It is "still capitalism"!

Hell, it's even in its name: "stamocap" (state monopoly CAPITALISM)!

I reiterate a point widely ignored by Leninists that Marx pointed out in his 1872 introduction to Das Kapital:
Marx
However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.” (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’ s Assocation, 1871, where this point is further developed.) --emphasis added

If there is one lesson learned from anything from the Civil War in France it's that you can't simply "lay hold of ready-made" machinery!

You have to completely destroy it!

Die Neue Zeit

27th April 2007, 04:09

If there is one lesson learned from anything from the Civil War in France it's that you can't simply "lay hold of ready-made" machinery!

You have to completely destroy it!

Soviets AND FACTORY/WORKPLACE/WORKERS' COMMITTEES aren't "ready-made machinery." Heck, even communal councils (borrowing JUST a little bit from the Venezuelan experience, but like I said, they'd be part of the tricameral system in place after the revolution) aren't "ready-made."

prepare them for when they overthrow capitalism rather than some small, conspiracist, blanquist-clone vanguard

To which I already said (and you haven't commented on the Maoist connection, BTW):

The international vanguard party is dedicated to this education, as well as professional revolution strategy.

[The latter because I can't stomach the idea of a revolution implementing Mao's human-wave crap, which goes right back to your "deserve to be slaughtered" comments. Without professional strategy during the revolution, the "slaughtering of sheep" which you so condemn WILL occur.]

ComradeRed

27th April 2007, 05:18

Originally posted by Hammer+April 26, 2007 07:09 pm--> (Hammer @ April 26, 2007 07:09 pm)
If there is one lesson learned from anything from the Civil War in France it's that you can't simply "lay hold of ready-made" machinery!

You have to completely destroy it!

Soviets AND FACTORY/WORKPLACE/WORKERS' COMMITTEES aren't "ready-made machinery." [/b]
It's too bad that the soviets didn't really hold power. As Lenin said at the "First All-Russian Congress of workers in education and socialist culture":
When we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of one party [...] we say, "Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party!" From Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 29, pages 532-539; emphasis added.

Well so much for the dictatorship of the proletariat! <_<

Further, I thought our discussion had been speaking of "modern times", i.e. the current situation before us at this very moment...which is why I reject "stamocap" as a revolutionary advancement. It would be little more than either laying hold of ready-made apparatuses or else abolishing and then reinstating these apparatuses.

As for the historical evolution of the mode of production of the USSR, it industrialized and by 1937 - as I've all ready stated - 100% of the factory managers were in the vanguard party and 97.1 to 99.1% of the traditional bourgeois positions were party members.

It leads me to conclude that given the traditional bourgeois positions were in charge of the state apparatus, and wielded for practical purposes the power of the state, This "degenerate workers' state" sounds awfully like capitalism...by pure coincidence no doubt! <_<

Heck, even communal councils (borrowing JUST a little bit from the Venezuelan experience, but like I said, they'd be part of the tricameral system in place after the revolution) aren't "ready-made." As for the Venezuela experience, having worker-controlled factories is not the same as the abolition of capitalism.

Which leads me to quote Marx from his preface to A Contribution to A Critique of Political Economy:
Marx
In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. --emphasis added, from A Contribution to A Critique of Political Economy (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm) by Karl Marx

Having a worker-run capitalism is still capitalism, and would have only a slightly "revolutionary" superstructure.

The international vanguard party is dedicated to this education, as well as professional revolution strategy. As I always begin, I must ask: is this true?

Is a class of petit-bourgeois "revolutionaries" "dedicated to this education"? As we've seemed to have agreed, education really isn't "beyond" the workers.

And the bit about "professional revolution strategy" how antiquated is this!? As though they were the Publius Scipios of class struggle! :lol:

I reject the role of the "vanguard" or "professional revolutionaries" (and even, as apparently our board has a few (not you, others), "professional marxists") as the "architects" of the revolution.

As Marx once said: "The emancipation of the working class is the work of the workers themselves."

That is my position, like it or not.

Die Neue Zeit

27th April 2007, 05:43

Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 27, 2007 04:18 am--> (ComradeRed @ April 27, 2007 04:18 am) Further, I thought our discussion had been speaking of "modern times", i.e. the current situation before us at this very moment...which is why I reject "stamocap" as a revolutionary advancement. It would be little more than either laying hold of ready-made apparatuses or else abolishing and then reinstating these apparatuses. [/b]
OK, then. Let's go back further in time, to the transition towards capitalism from feudalism: the era of mercantilism (wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism).

Ready-made apparatuses? Look no further than to the merchants themselves (as businessmen and as "apparatuses").

As for the Venezuela experience, having worker-controlled factories is not the same as the abolition of capitalism... Having a worker-run capitalism is still capitalism, and would have only a slightly "revolutionary" superstructure.

Who said I equated THAT to socialism? Here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25041&view=findpost&p=1292295044)and here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25041&view=findpost&p=1292295854) <_<

And the bit about "professional revolution strategy" how antiquated is this!? As though they were the Publius Scipios of class struggle! :lol:

I reject the role of the "vanguard" or "professional revolutionaries" (and even, as apparently our board has a few (not you, others), "professional marxists") as the "architects" of the revolution.

As Marx once said: "The emancipation of the working class is the work of the workers themselves."

That is my position, like it or not.

A little elaboration on my position (not shared by Bolshevik-Leninists or Marxist-Leninists, mind you - and you didn't visit :( ):

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292298744 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65355&view=findpost&p=1292298744)

Karl Marx did not title his pamphlet Manifesto of the Communist Parties for a good reason, you know.

Which brings me to my two questions on the revolutionary vanguard in today's world. First, the political: why can't EVERY revolutionary "state-socialist" group get past their sectarian differences on historically moot points (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65114) (link), take extreme advantage of the Internet and other information technology, and jointly establish an intercontinental revolutionary vanguard party, with national operations being conducted by "cells"?

[Council communists should hop aboard, too, and to hell with "national-local considerations" as the excuse for national parties. The only way for workers' councils to spring up even before revolution is for the vanguard party to spread political consciousness.]

Second, the historical: why wasn't such a party founded in the first place instead of the Second International? After all, the so-called "First International" did not consist of various political parties, and was itself dedicated to the creation of an intercontinental communist party.

...

[email protected] 14, 2007 09:28 am
There are already a number of internationals.
^^^ Which I said are irrelevant in today's globalized world. One vanguard party is enough, not a whole sectarian bunch and their associated "internationals." :(

...

Back then, those behind the Second International had the chance to form a "world vanguard" - even without advanced communications like the Internet - but did not take advantage of it because of the constraints of "orthodox Marxism" (the Kautskyites). The only excuse for the Comintern's existence - as opposed to an expanded vanguard party ("guided" by the Bolsheviks) - is its creation in REACTION to the social-democratic betrayal, and the Soviet republic's post-CW isolation.

With advanced communications technology today, and with the sectarian irrelevancies giving way to "revolution or reformism," there is a need for such a world party. [Heck, there are even efforts to replace the Internet right now with something more advanced. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070414/ap_on_hi_te/rebuilding_the_internet_8)]

...

Interesting, but your [left-communist] hesitance to form that party is due to your lack of appreciation for "Leninist vanguardism" - even if the class struggle has already existed since the dawn of capitalism! At least you aren't "opportunistic," as opposed to the so-called Bolshevik-Leninists (Trotskyite sectarians), so-called Marxist-Leninists (Stalinist national-socialists), and their respective party leaderships.

...

[The reason I advocate this internationalization with national "cells" is because of the democratic centralism question, which stifles political opportunists claiming to "contribute" to socialist theory in their national circumstances. While left-communist Leo has good points, I advocate such not because I'm flirting with left communism, but because of the democratic centralism question.]

...

Globalization so far has been limited to corporations, labour unions, and NGOs - why not entire political parties? The tension between opportunistic spontaneity and centralized organization is there: let's take it to a global level.

Nihilistic

27th April 2007, 06:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:38 am
i used to agree with the theory of state monopoly capitalism, but right now I have some problems with it:

I understand that the most well thought version of that theory, which is the left communist one, is that rather than it being just an isolated phenomenon of past "socialist" countries, state-capital (nationalized industries and welfare) is a widespread phenomenon adapted by most countries today. however, the only state capitalist nation states are the ones that adopt state capital as its main economic base, this includes late 19th century and early 20th century Japan, late 19th century Russia, and every-nation were most of the bourgeosie was merged with the state. Fascist Italy and perhaps Nazi Germany (dont know much about nazi economics) also were predominantly state capitalist counties.

However, the thing is that countries like Japan differed in their economic model with "socialist" countries in the sense that economy was driven by market values rather than by what was needed inside the nation Stalinist industralization was not driven by external market prices, it was driven by the resources needed by the soviet population at that time. This is a fundamental difference, and this is why state-bourgeosie in places like Japan and early russians were much more richer than soviet bureacrats.

Another difference is that socialist bureacrats were never that rich to other type of capitalists. If those bureacrats would be driven entirely by profit as normal capitalists, they would certainly would have been a hell of a lot richer.

Don't misinterpret me though, I dont think past "socialist" countries were really socialist, because there wasn't much workers' control. Today's dictatorship, the dictatorship of the bourgeosie, does have direct bourgeois control, were the bourgeosie directly CONTROLS the means of production, not through mediation, but through direct control.

This raises an important question:

What were past "socialist" experiments then?
You miss the fundamental point of state-monopoly Capitalism, or more specifically, why it is the progenitor of Communism.

Communist ideology holds that Capitalism is a road to socialism, and history has born this out objectivly. In highly developed Capitalist states, we see a decline in small-scale production and a rise in large-scale production which goes hand in hand with a rise in the concentation of capitol. The rich get richer, the powerful get more powerful. To say that this would help socialism is on the face counter-intuitive, because it would seem that the more powerfull Capitalists become, the harder it would be to overthrow them. However, the power in any economy, in any epoche, is solely held by the proletariat, this suprahistorical fact is kept from them. The consolidation of power by chicken kings in a developed Capitalism generates greater and greater numbers of Proletariats. The small business owner, the artisan, even the skilled worker are all turned into unskilled wage laboureres. The bourgeousie Capitalist's greed makes the few more powerfull, but it also bolsters the rank of it's enemies to never before seen numbers. As this goes on, the Proletariat consolidates power at a far more terrifying pace than the bourgeousie. This, however, is not the only way the bourgeousie facilitate there own destruction, Capitalism is self-destructive on another account.

When the production of any one commodity is so monopolized that one or a few owners of the means of production provide the vast majority of said commodity to the marketplace, they are essentially socializing labor, but not power or capitol. I referenced the coinage "chicken king" earlier on, and here is where it comes into play. If, say, one person or an un-connected group of people own all the chickens in a given country, the laborers who work for these people will essentially be working for all the citizens in the country. The Chicken King will supply the entire country with eggs, chicken breasts, even drummettes, so anyone that works for this person will essentially be working for the society as a whole rather than a segment. In addition to the socializing of labor, the infrastructure for Socialism is also created. As the Capitalist searches for new and unique ways to maximize proftis, he will soon realize that large scale production is the answer. When he buys out the local competitor, he will not continue to use the factory obtained, he will instead build onto his own. He will generate massive factories and enormous infrastructures that will facilitate his demise. Consider a Socialist revolution taking place before the "chicken king" era, it would be doomed to failure. It would be impossible to organize work, or to ensure production, thousands of small factories spread throughout the country would never cohere in the Socialist way.

So we have the organization necessary for Socialism, we obtained it from wal-mart at the start of the revolution, we expended many resources to ensure it's assimilation. We now know what areas of the country use what resources, we know where supplies should be sent and in what quantity. Since we no longer need to make a profit from wal-mart, work hours can be cut allowing for more leisure time and the furthering of education. Since wal-mart no longer needs to produce a profit, it no longer needs to buy useless items that the masses consume because of clever campaign adds. Society as a whole instantly has less time to work, and more time to play. After we realize that wal-mart not needing to turn a profit anymore entails that a whole slew of other uselless Capitalist commodities can be done away with, we will have reduced the work week considerably, while still ensureing that everyone gets what they need. Wal-Mart did us the favor of making our revolution possible.

Marsella

27th April 2007, 06:36

As Marx once said: "The emancipation of the working class is the work of the workers themselves."

But hasn’t two-hundred years of capitalism proven that the working class has not advanced past trade union consciousness? Therein lies the role of the vanguard as Leninists say: to take power on behalf of workers.

So, doesn’t this lack of class consciousness stem from different economic conditions which Marx predicted? I.e. workers do not receive a ‘living wage’. Capitalists (to an extent) have sacrificed some of their capital to keep the working class in a deluded state as to their real conditions…

What's your take on this?

Nihilistic

27th April 2007, 06:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:36 am

As Marx once said: "The emancipation of the working class is the work of the workers themselves."

But hasn’t two-hundred years of capitalism proven that the working class has not advanced past trade union consciousness? Therein lies the role of the vanguard as Leninists say: to take power on behalf of workers.

So, doesn’t this lack of class consciousness stem from different economic conditions which Marx predicted? I.e. workers do not receive a ‘living wage’. Capitalists (to an extent) have sacrificed some of their capital to keep the working class in a deluded state as to their real conditions…

What's your take on this?
I'm just wondering, how long do you think the previous 3 epochs of history lasted? Certainly more than 200 years....would it be safe to say each was over a thousand years.

ComradeRed

27th April 2007, 07:27

I'm exhausted, so I'll reply to you hammer tomorrow.

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 09:36 pm

As Marx once said: "The emancipation of the working class is the work of the workers themselves."

But hasn’t two-hundred years of capitalism proven that the working class has not advanced past trade union consciousness? Therein lies the role of the vanguard as Leninists say: to take power on behalf of workers. So the workers are sheep now?

If you truly believe workers are sheep that cannot do anything without a shepherd, then why not become a capitalist? Aren't all sheep good for are shearing, and for the slaughter because they're sheep?

Such a point of view is fundamentally reactionary...coincidentally, it's the canonical Leninist view. Big surprise there.

So, doesn’t this lack of class consciousness stem from different economic conditions which Marx predicted? I.e. workers do not receive a ‘living wage’. Capitalists (to an extent) have sacrificed some of their capital to keep the working class in a deluded state as to their real conditions…

What's your take on this? It's complete bullocks is my take on it.

If anything, things are going exactly as Marx predicted with the amount of technological innovation.

Why hasn't the proletariat overthrown capitalism then, since things are going as Marx predicted!

Well, the material conditions are not ready for capitalism's demise.

The way things look, IF nanotechnology is the material condition requisite for a classless society, THEN it should take 50 to 100 years for it to come to fruition.

Nihilistic was quite right in pointing out how long the previous epochs have lasted...feudalism, the shortest reigning epoch, lasted for 1000+ years!

IF I'm right with my guess that nanotechnology is the material condition that will trigger a revolution, THEN capitalism would've had a run of roughly 550 or less years.

That's remarkably short by comparison!

There is a considerable inconsistency between the Marxist paradigm and the Leninist one, I'd love to go into it in more detail; however, again I must bring up the issue that I am supposed to be working on nonlocal operators in quantum field theory and trying to make the measurement process of them relational (yeah, it is more fun than a barrel of monkeys!).

ComradeRed

27th April 2007, 18:22

Originally posted by Hammer+April 26, 2007 08:43 pm--> (Hammer @ April 26, 2007 08:43 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2007 04:18 am
Further, I thought our discussion had been speaking of "modern times", i.e. the current situation before us at this very moment...which is why I reject "stamocap" as a revolutionary advancement. It would be little more than either laying hold of ready-made apparatuses or else abolishing and then reinstating these apparatuses.
OK, then. Let's go back further in time, to the transition towards capitalism from feudalism: the era of mercantilism (wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism).

Ready-made apparatuses? Look no further than to the merchants themselves (as businessmen and as "apparatuses").[/b]I think that Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch14.htm) gave a better explanation in Das Kapital, vol. I...because, as I've stated in the Logic thread, wikipedia is not a technical reference!

At any rate, your reply didn't satisfactorily reply to my point.

If we were to hypothetically have a revolution, and institute "stamocap", you're basically switching one set of bosses for another.

But let us suppose hypothetically we were to look at some post-feudal, pre-capitalist nation today...say somewhere in the Middle-East.

"Stamocap" would work there...it would bring about an industrialized, modernized economy. That is exactly what it is "designed" for.

Looking at the composition of society of Russia in 1917, it was 80% peasantry. I suspect from 1919-1924 the Soviet Union could be more accurately described as a Jacobin dictatorship seeing as it was "war communism"; from 1924-1991 it was more accurately described as "state capitalism". (I do plan to do more work on this in June, after my work on physics is more or less done for a few months)

But it is revealing why you would choose a post-feudal mode of production as the time for a "stamocap" revolution. It is, after all, when the material conditions trigger the capitalist mode of production.

As for the Venezuela experience, having worker-controlled factories is not the same as the abolition of capitalism... Having a worker-run capitalism is still capitalism, and would have only a slightly "revolutionary" superstructure.

Who said I equated THAT to socialism? Here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25041&view=findpost&p=1292295044)and here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25041&view=findpost&p=1292295854) <_< No, I was just venting my rage against those that say it is socialism; sorry it came out towards you.

And the bit about "professional revolution strategy" how antiquated is this!? As though they were the Publius Scipios of class struggle! :lol:

I reject the role of the "vanguard" or "professional revolutionaries" (and even, as apparently our board has a few (not you, others), "professional marxists") as the "architects" of the revolution.

As Marx once said: "The emancipation of the working class is the work of the workers themselves."

That is my position, like it or not.

A little elaboration on my position (not shared by Bolshevik-Leninists or Marxist-Leninists, mind you - and you didn't visit :( ):

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292298744 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65355&view=findpost&p=1292298744) No, I read the thread.

Frankly, I think a radically different approach to organization should be taken rather than the stale vanguard paradigm of old.

But I'm just going to ramble on about what I think about the organizational paradigm of the radical left should be. Slightly off topic ;)

Die Neue Zeit

28th April 2007, 09:51

Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 27, 2007 05:22 pm--> (ComradeRed @ April 27, 2007 05:22 pm) But it is revealing why you would choose a post-feudal mode of production as the time for a "stamocap" revolution. It is, after all, when the material conditions trigger the capitalist mode of production. [/b]
Hopscotch Anthill said this (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65800&view=findpost&p=1292306678) in another thread:

The aggression of the dehumanized against the dehumanizer is the re-creation of the dehumanized in his own image. Revolution is violent, and if it wasn't, then it wouldn't be revolution — that's a fact that no one can escape. Not even the most fond lovers of capitalism can deny that revolution, including their own, is something that requires violence — Cromwell, Robespierre, Washington, etc. weren't pacifists.

The most common "post-feudal" mode of production is that mercantilism. Also, notice how the bourgeois revolutions all didn't lead to capitalism immediately. The transition period of mercantilism was able to "evolve" into capitalism, even though mercantilism was and is closer to feudalism (gold supply, pre-Lenin imperialism, the comparison between protectionism and feudal monopoly) than to capitalism.

Likewise, the socialist revolutions do NOT immediately lead to socialism; like I said before, there is a transitory period in between that EVOLVES into socialism, AND THAT PERIOD IS REVOLUTIONARY STAMOCAP (but with the multinational state, guided and inspired by the international Kommunisticheskaya Partiya Lenina, controlling the still-existing CAPITAL).

And as for the orthodox Marxist idea about conflict, why is there no anti-socialist violence that ushers in communist society? <_<

Henceforth I differentiate between Lenin's "primitive stamocap" (the compression of Time Points A to C, also known as "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat AND THE PEASANTRY") and "revolutionary stamocap" (the exclusive dictatorship of the proletariat, with the peasantry already extinct as a class thanks to monopoly-capitalist development in terms of industrial farming).

Martov
But hasn’t two-hundred years of capitalism proven that the working class has not advanced past trade union consciousness? Therein lies the role of the vanguard as Leninists say: to take power on behalf of workers.

So, doesn’t this lack of class consciousness stem from different economic conditions which Marx predicted? I.e. workers do not receive a ‘living wage’. Capitalists (to an extent) have sacrificed some of their capital to keep the working class in a deluded state as to their real conditions…

What's your take on this?

I rebutted him with a little "sheep" comment of my own (Mao's "human waves" being the result of spontaneous revolutions without professional VANGUARD strategy), which he hasn't responded to yet. BTW, why did you take up the name of that notorious Menshevik leader? :huh:

ComradeRed

29th April 2007, 02:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 12:51 am
The most common "post-feudal" mode of production is that mercantilism. Also, notice how the bourgeois revolutions all didn't lead to capitalism immediately. The transition period of mercantilism was able to "evolve" into capitalism, even though mercantilism was and is closer to feudalism (gold supply, pre-Lenin imperialism, the comparison between protectionism and feudal monopoly) than to capitalism.

Likewise, the socialist revolutions do NOT immediately lead to socialism; like I said before, there is a transitory period in between that EVOLVES into socialism, AND THAT PERIOD IS REVOLUTIONARY STAMOCAP (but with the multinational state, guided and inspired by the international Kommunisticheskaya Partiya Lenina, controlling the still-existing CAPITAL).--emphasis added

Yes, you have asserted this before: out of "revolutionary state monopoly" capitalism magically comes a classless society.

This isn't anything like what the revisionists proposed. You know, out of capitalism comes socialism and then a classless society.

Frankly, you can add whatever adjectives you want, but stamocap is still capitalism. You are not changing the material conditions generated by this mode of production, you are simply changing the cast...the play goes on with the same plot!

And if you look historically that is precisely what happened.

Personally, I think Marx would be a better source for "what happens after the revolution" as far as what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would look like...he is, after all, the one who presented a brief outline of it in The Civil War in France!

One of the things that bothers me about your position here is that you don't specify a reason as to WHY it would never work.

Why can't you hit the ground running day 1 after the revolution? Because Lenin says so? :lol:

And as for the orthodox Marxist idea about conflict, why is there no anti-socialist violence that ushers in communist society? <_< What are you talking about? No one here is arguing that the capitalists will "go away" willingly.

The ruling class never "goes away willingly"...which is a serious problem for the "workers' state" camp! How do you explain the workers just "going away willingly" in 1991?

You can't without parting from (indeed, entirely contradicting) the orthodox Marxist position.

Henceforth I differentiate between Lenin's "primitive stamocap" (the compression of Time Points A to C, also known as "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat AND THE PEASANTRY") and "revolutionary stamocap" (the exclusive dictatorship of the proletariat, with the peasantry already extinct as a class thanks to monopoly-capitalist development in terms of industrial farming). Well that's fine and dandy, but I'm going with The Civil War in France's description of what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would look like.

When it comes down to it, Lenin was just using bits of Marx while ignoring a great deal of Marx's writings. Lenin was little more than a politician in his manipulations of Marx.

For this reason, I totally reject everything Lenin "came up with". His "theory" of "imperialism", the "vanguard party", everything. It was created to justify his bourgeois revolution in Russia.

(Mind you, this doesn't make the revolution any less revolutionary, it was just bourgeois as opposed to a workers' emancipation. It's hard to have the workers' emancipated when they constitute less than 20% of the population. As a fascinating aside, the material conditions of 1789 France were identical to those of 1917 Russia, with the exception that Russia was still at war whereas France had just lost one.)

Largely because, if he was right, and the USSR was a workers' state (degenerate or not it doesn't matter), then Marx and Engels were wrong about everything. And that would leave the Leninist justification of the USSR without any base. A rather interesting paradox to think about.

Die Neue Zeit

29th April 2007, 03:34

You have yet to respond to my "human wave" remarks, and did Lenin or I ever even say that the Soviet republic was a "workers' state" of any sorts - as opposed to a "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat AND THE PEASANTRY"? <_<

Well that's fine and dandy, but I'm going with The Civil War in France's description of what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would look like.

Which goes hand in hand with Lessons of the Commune and The State and Revolution :)

ComradeRed

29th April 2007, 04:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 06:34 pm
You have yet to respond to my "human wave" remarks...
Oh yes, your "argument" which is:
[The latter because I can't stomach the idea of a revolution implementing Mao's human-wave crap, which goes right back to your "deserve to be slaughtered" comments. Without professional strategy during the revolution, the "slaughtering of sheep" which you so condemn WILL occur.] --emphasis added

That's no argument, that's an assertion.

Further, it doesn't deny the notion the workers are sheep. It essentially assents to the proposition.

That is a reactionary position to state "The emancipation of the workers is the work of the working class themselves and professional strategists!"

...and did Lenin or I ever even say that the Soviet republic was a "workers' state" of any sorts - as opposed to a "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat AND THE PEASANTRY"? <_< Well, using a quick search of Marxists.org's archive of Lenin's complete works, the term "dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fmarxists.org%2Farchiv e%2Flenin%2F+%22dictatorship+of+the+proletariat+an d+peasantry%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) appears 6 times whereas the term "workers state" (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fmarxists.org%2Farchiv e%2Flenin%2F+%22workers+state%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) appears 6 times as frequently.

It was Trotsky who really used the term frequently.

Further this ignores even the most basic characteristic of the peasantry described in the manifesto: they are a fundamentally reactionary element in society!

And you want to integrate them into the "dictatorship of the proletariat"?!

Further, why are you trying to have socialism in a nation where the peasantry are the majority?!? The material conditions that trigger a workers' revolution is not present, viz. the underlying condition that there are workers is not met!

If we follow Marx and Engels' on this, it would logically be a bourgeois revolution. That is not to say that the revolution is any less revolutionary; simply it's a bourgeois revolution in a feudal nation is all.

Which goes hand in hand with Lessons of the Commune and The State and Revolution No it doesn't.

The latter of the two is simply a "copy/paste" job of every instance where Marx and Engels even mention a post-revolutionary society, and then some rather poor assessment of the "necessity" of having "early stages of socialism" and so forth.

The Lessons of the Commune (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mar/23.htm) provides nothing of value for explaining what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" ought to look like...only marginal notes of "passing interest" that Lenin scribbled down.

This is of very little use for describing what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" ought to be. On the one hand you simply have a compilation of Marx and Engels on the post-revolutionary society with bourgeois commentary, and on the other you have the passing fancies of a bourgeois revolutionary on the Paris commune.

I think I'll stick with Marx on the aspects of the Paris commune that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" ought to have...as he was the only one who really described the characteristics in (compared to other descriptions) extensive detail.

Die Neue Zeit

29th April 2007, 04:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:11 am
It was Trotsky who really used the term frequently.

Further this ignores even the most basic characteristic of the peasantry described in the manifesto: they are a fundamentally reactionary element in society!
That's right - Trotsky, as opposed to Lenin. As for the Manifesto of the Communist Party, peasants are reactionary ONLY in relation to SOCIALISM, but quite revolutionary in relation to CAPITALISM. After all, the less passive elements of the peasantry in a post-feudal society want their own land at the expense of the landlords (see my land thread, but there I was arguing in favour of industrial state-owned farming as the ultimate fulfillment of industrial farming).

And you want to integrate them into the "dictatorship of the proletariat"?!

Further, why are you trying to have socialism in a nation where the peasantry are the majority?!? The material conditions that trigger a workers' revolution is not present, viz. the underlying condition that there are workers is not met!

This time around, I don't think you got what I've said over and over again. You really should read up on the differences between Trotsky and Lenin on the subject matter.

Like you said, Lenin was NOT trying to have socialism in a peasants' country (which only partly explains his stance against "socialism in one country"). October was a revolutionary-democratic revolution, NOT a socialist one!

If we follow Marx and Engels' on this, it would logically be a bourgeois revolution. That is not to say that the revolution is any less revolutionary; simply it's a bourgeois revolution in a feudal nation is all.

There's a fundamental difference between a bourgeois revolution and a revolutionary-democratic revolution. Both have the aim of instituting LONG-TERM CAPITALISM (at least relative to the future transitional period towards socialism). However, guess why October occurred in the first place: BECAUSE THE BOURGEOISIE THEMSELVES WERE INCAPABLE OF FIGHTING TO PRESERVE THE GAINS OF FEBRUARY!

THAT'S THE STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCE: THE WILLINGNESS OF THE BOURGEOISIE TO DEFEND THEIR OWN GAINS, AND WHO CARRIES OUT THEIR TASKS (THEMSELVES, OR OTHERS WHO CAST THEM ASIDE).

[Heh, heh, they're "sheep," those Russian bourgeoisie ;) ]

On the one hand you simply have a compilation of Marx and Engels on the post-revolutionary society with bourgeois commentary, and on the other you have the passing fancies of a bourgeois revolutionary on the Paris commune.

As bourgeois as Marx and Engels :P

ComradeRed

29th April 2007, 05:22

Originally posted by Hammer+April 28, 2007 07:40 pm--> (Hammer @ April 28, 2007 07:40 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2007 03:11 am
It was Trotsky who really used the term frequently.

Further this ignores even the most basic characteristic of the peasantry described in the manifesto: they are a fundamentally reactionary element in society!
That's right - Trotsky, as opposed to Lenin. As for the Manifesto of the Communist Party, they are reactionary in terms of their relation to SOCIALISM, but quite revolutionary in relation to CAPITALISM. After all, the less passive elements of the peasantry in a post-feudal society want their own land (see my land thread, but there I was arguing in favour of industrial state-owned farming as the ultimate fulfillment of industrial farming).[/b]
By such reasoning Nazis are "revolutionary" because they want to overthrow the status quo form of capitalism too <_<

Would you like to have "solidarity" with them as well?

Or perhaps the elements of the KKK which wish to return to feudalism?

I know these are all "revolutionary" elements to society in your view, but my "sectarian" nature says we should do without them.

Like you said, Lenin was NOT trying to have socialism in a peasants' country (which only partly explains his stance against "socialism in one country"). October was a revolutionary-democratic revolution, NOT a socialist one! Well, this is a start I guess.

The problem is that differentiating between a bourgeois and a "revolutionary-democratic" revolution is pure semantics. There is no structural difference between them.

It's like a libertarian trying to differentiate between "real capitalism" and the "communist" government of the U$ :lol:

There's a fundamental difference between a bourgeois revolution and a revolutionary-democratic revolution. Both have stated aims of instituting LONG-TERM CAPITALISM (at least relative to the future transitional period towards socialism). And that is...?

Historically appears to be very little.

However, guess why October occurred in the first place: BECAUSE THE BOURGEOISIE THEMSELVES WERE INCAPABLE OF FIGHTING TO PRESERVE THE GAINS OF FEBRUARY! What relevance does this have to the "fundamental difference between a bourgeois revolution and a revolutionary-democratic revolution"?

[Heh, heh, they're "sheep" ;) ] Well I'm glad your reactionary opinion at least amuses you :)

On the one hand you simply have a compilation of Marx and Engels on the post-revolutionary society with bourgeois commentary, and on the other you have the passing fancies of a bourgeois revolutionary on the Paris commune.As bourgeois as Marx and Engels :P Marx and Engels aren't off limits to being criticized. They are not "untouchable".

They were powerfully wrong on some things...like dialectics. They were powerfully correct on others, like the LTV.

But the fact that they came up with a revolutionary new paradigm does not make them brahmin of the working class.

Their work should be critically re-evaluated given the tools of Marxism.

Die Neue Zeit

29th April 2007, 05:31

Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 29, 2007 04:22 am--> (ComradeRed @ April 29, 2007 04:22 am)
[email protected] 28, 2007 07:40
That's right - Trotsky, as opposed to Lenin. As for the Manifesto of the Communist Party, they are reactionary in terms of their relation to SOCIALISM, but quite revolutionary in relation to CAPITALISM. After all, the less passive elements of the peasantry in a post-feudal society want their own land (see my land thread, but there I was arguing in favour of industrial state-owned farming as the ultimate fulfillment of industrial farming).
By such reasoning Nazis are "revolutionary" because they want to overthrow the status quo form of capitalism too <_<

Would you like to have "solidarity" with them as well?

Or perhaps the elements of the KKK which wish to return to feudalism?

I know these are all "revolutionary" elements to society in your view, but my "sectarian" nature says we should do without them. [/b]
^^^ That's not my point. The peasants WANT to dump FEUDALISM and institute capitalism in agriculture (hence ownership of land). <_<

And that is...?

Historically appears to be very little.

However, guess why October occurred in the first place: BECAUSE THE BOURGEOISIE THEMSELVES WERE INCAPABLE OF FIGHTING TO PRESERVE THE GAINS OF FEBRUARY! What relevance does this have to the "fundamental difference between a bourgeois revolution and a revolutionary-democratic revolution"?

I just said the STRUCTURAL difference: in a proper bourgeois revolution, the bourgeoisie have the balls to keep their gains. In a revolutionary-democratic revolution, the alliance of workers AND peasants have to carry out the bourgeois tasks themselves, before the alliance breaks down (socialist revolution and the DOTP, wherein the peasantry will have already been eliminated as a class thanks to industrial farming).

[Heh, heh, they're "sheep" ;) ] Well I'm glad your reactionary opinion at least amuses you :)

I was referring to the Russian bourgeoisie during the short tenure of the Provisional Government. <_<

ComradeRed

29th April 2007, 05:58

Originally posted by Hammer+April 28, 2007 08:31 pm--> (Hammer @ April 28, 2007 08:31 pm)^^^ That's not my point. The peasants WANT to dump FEUDALISM and institute capitalism in agriculture (hence ownership of land). <_< [/b]
Time to pull out the copy of The Communist Manifesto (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm):
Marx
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat. --emphasis added
In a feudal mode of production, you are right; I am however talking about the capitalist mode of production.

And that is...?

Historically appears to be very little.

However, guess why October occurred in the first place: BECAUSE THE BOURGEOISIE THEMSELVES WERE INCAPABLE OF FIGHTING TO PRESERVE THE GAINS OF FEBRUARY! What relevance does this have to the "fundamental difference between a bourgeois revolution and a revolutionary-democratic revolution"?

I just said the difference: in a proper bourgeois revolution, the bourgeoisie have the balls to keep their gains. In a revolutionary-democratic revolution, the alliance of workers AND peasants have to carry out the bourgeois tasks themselves, before the alliance breaks down (socialist revolution and the DOTP, wherein the peasantry will have already been eliminated as a class thanks to industrial farming).Because we all know that the "vanguard" can't possibly be bourgeois <_<

Oh that's right, they're (admittedly!) petit-bourgeois which, as the first Marx quote points out, is openly reactionary when the proletariat becomes revolutionary.

Which essentially translates today into Leninists are revolutionary in feudal nations, and reactionary in industrial nations. This appears to be accurate based on my interactions with Leninists.

But the problem is with your example, the October "revolution", it was principally a group of Bolshevik soldiers who went to the Winter palace to arrest the Kerensky government. It was not some revolution as it is popularly depicted, it was a coup!

See A People's Tragedy : the Russian Revolution, 1891-1924 by Orlando Figes for more details on the coup.

How does this really change the 1917-1924 period from being a Jacobin dictatorship?

It's simply sophistry to say "Ah, it wasn't a Jacobin dictatorship, it was a revolutionary-democratic revolution...which just so happened to have the characteristics, material conditions, and appearance of a Jacobin dictatorship and is indistinguishable from one...but it was a revolutionary-democratic revolution!"

Frankly, while the revolution was really still going on and the "Reds" were consolidating power (the 1917-1924 period) it is more accurate to explain the Soviet Union as such. From 1926 (if I'm not mistaken, when Stalin takes over), it's more accurate to call it a state capitalism (given the conditions of a capitalist state being secured, the vanguard being composed of bourgeoisie, etc.).

(Actually, I suspect that you would adopt this view too since Engels explained the Jacobin dictatorship of France in the late 19th century as a "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship" in the Anti-Duhring.)

As I've complained before, those who disagree and attempt a refutation don't give any facts, figures, or even references to books saying otherwise! And that's phenomenally frustrating for someone to say "I refute it thus!" and walk away.

Die Neue Zeit

29th April 2007, 06:05

The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class.

One grave note of error on Marx's part: peasants are NOT middle-class or "fractions of the middle class." They're quite poor. :)

But the problem is with your example, the October "revolution", it was principally a group of Bolshevik soldiers who went to the Winter palace to arrest the Kerensky government. It was not some revolution as it is popularly depicted, it was a coup!

See A People's Tragedy : the Russian Revolution, 1891-1924 by Orlando Figes for more details on the coup.

Now you've really gone low, buying into capitalist propaganda on the subject of Red October! :angry: Even anarchists, as counter-revolutionary as they are, at least say "less than a revolution but more than a coup." (http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/russ/oct.html) <_<

Note the "historical revisionist" account that has come about in recent years, rejecting both your LIBERAL assertion and the Soviet caricatures. Consider the Bolshevik MAJORITY IN THE SOVIETS!

Oh, and Orlando Figes is a pro-establishment historian, like SO MANY HISTORIANS, WHO ARE PRO-ESTABLISHMENT!

EDIT: BTW, your "coup" remarks will doubtlessly illicit the "interest" of other posters, as evidenced by RedDali's entrance.

ComradeRed

29th April 2007, 06:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 09:05 pm

The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class.

One grave note of error on Marx's part: peasants are NOT middle-class or "fractions of the middle class." They're quite poor. :)
Being poor has nothing to do with whether you are reactionary or not. Look at the "Deep South" in the U$, a great deal of poor farmers there and it's one of the most reactionary places in the world.

You are making the same mistake that the cappies in the OI are making: supposing that wealth has some relation to class. It doesn't. Relation to the means of production and labor on the other hand does.

Now you've really gone low, buying into capitalist propaganda on the subject of Red October! :angry: Even anarchists, as counter-revolutionary as they are, at least say "less than a revolution but more than a coup." <_< This is present in every history text on the Russian revolution, e.g. The Russian Revolution by Sheila Fitzpatrick.

Though agreed the first text I cited was more bourgeois propaganda than historical fact.

Note the "historical revisionist" account that has come about in recent years, rejecting both your LIBERAL assertion and the Soviet caricatures. Consider the Bolshevik MAJORITY IN THE SOVIETS! Could you elaborate this, as you have seemed to stop rather arbitrarily.

Die Neue Zeit

29th April 2007, 06:21

Read the edited post above, and this:

Draft Decree On The Dissolution Of The Constituent Assembly (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/jan/06a.htm)

During the whole of the initial period of the Russian Revolution the Soviets multiplied in number, grew and gained strength and were taught by their own experience to discard the illusions of compromise with the bourgeoisie and to realise the deceptive nature of the forms of the bourgeois-democratic parliamentary system; they arrived by practical experience at the conclusion that the emancipation of the oppressed classes was impossible unless they broke with these forms and with every kind of compromise. The break came with the October Revolution, which transferred the entire power to the Soviets...

The October Revolution, by giving power to the Soviets, and through the Soviets to the working and exploited classes, aroused the desperate resistance of the exploiters, and in the crushing of this resistance it fully revealed itself as the beginning of the socialist revolution. The working classes learned by experience that the old bourgeois parliamentary system had outlived its purpose and was absolutely incompatible with the aim of achieving socialism, and that not national institutions, but only class institutions (such as the Soviets) were capable of overcoming the resistance of the propertied classes and of laying the foundations of socialist society. To relinquish the sovereign power of the Soviets, to relinquish the Soviet Republic won by the people, for the sake of the bourgeois parliamentary system and the Constituent Assembly, would now be a step backwards and would cause the collapse of the October workers’ and peasants’ revolution.

Labor Shall Rule

29th April 2007, 06:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 04:58 am
But the problem is with your example, the October "revolution", it was principally a group of Bolshevik soldiers who went to the Winter palace to arrest the Kerensky government. It was not some revolution as it is popularly depicted, it was a coup!

See A People's Tragedy : the Russian Revolution, 1891-1924 by Orlando Figes for more details on the coup.

How does this really change the 1917-1924 period from being a Jacobin dictatorship?

It's simply sophistry to say "Ah, it wasn't a Jacobin dictatorship, it was a revolutionary-democratic revolution...which just so happened to have the characteristics, material conditions, and appearance of a Jacobin dictatorship and is indistinguishable from one...but it was a revolutionary-democratic revolution!"

Frankly, while the revolution was really still going on and the "Reds" were consolidating power (the 1917-1924 period) it is more accurate to explain the Soviet Union as such. From 1926 (if I'm not mistaken, when Stalin takes over), it's more accurate to call it a state capitalism (given the conditions of a capitalist state being secured, the vanguard being composed of bourgeoisie, etc.).
This is unhistorical babble that is covered in the sugar-coding of anti-communism. A People's Tragedy : the Russian Revolution, 1891-1924 was actually advertised by David Horowitz, and Clinton acknowledged that it was reading material that he personally refered to on the subject of the Russian Revolution. With these figures putting this work on the pedestal of bourgeois falsification, can you really consider this a source of the utmost accountability?

The October Revolution was permeated by the events of the attempted coup of Kornilov, who actually had sided with Kerensky and the cadets; the so-called 'democratic' ministers of the Provisional Government, in order to silence the growing strength of the worker and soldier deputies within Petrograd. On the first of September, the day after the Petrograd Soviet had officially announced that Kornilov's army was demoralized and scattered to a point of defeat due to desertions and overall mutiny, a wave of support flooded the Soviet Central Executive Committe from the Urals, the Donbas, the Central Industrial region, the Ukraine, the Baltic, Central Asia, and other municipal locations that all called for the Petrograd Soviet to seize power. They received several resolutions from over 126 local Soviets demanding that this proposition be answered to. Later that day, the Petrograd Soviet officially voted to support the Bolshevik Party, and drastically outvoted the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. It was therefore, a democratic decision based on the worker's sentiments towards Kerensky and his government.

I don't think that we can denounce the Bolsheviks as the Jacobins. I think that their actions reflected who their class allengiances were with, and it was clearly with that of the workers.

Draft Regulations On Workers’ Control (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/26.htm)

The Salaries of High-Ranking Office Employees and Officials (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/nov/18b.htm)

I don't think any person with a distinct orientation to the bourgeois class would willingly surrender their private property, as the Bolsheviks clearly did after they seized control during the October Revolution. So I hold that it is crude determinism to paint the Bolshevik Party as the enclave of the closet-bourgeoisie due to the social origins of many top-party members.

ComradeRed

29th April 2007, 07:11

Hammer:
Oh yes, Lenin would tell the truth if it were a coup as it's such a fantastic propaganda tool :lol:

Hell, even Fitzpatrick writes: "It may seem remarkable, under these circumstances, that the Bolsheviks' October Coup actually came off." Italics are Fitzpatrick's bold is mine. Fitzpatrick further italicizes some half a dozen mentions of the coup in the span of two pages.

(This quote was on page 63 of The Russian Revolution mind you.)

The only mentions of it being a "popular uprising" are in the propaganda written by the Bolsheviks, and it's logical they would say that!

History appears to have said that it went otherwise. As I've stated, every book I've read on the subject specifically notes that it was a coup rather than a "popular uprising".

Judging based on the material conditions of the time, it is more feasible that it was indeed a coup rather than a "popular uprising".

RedDali:

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 09:33 pm
This is unhistorical babble that is covered in the sugar-coding of anti-communism. A People's Tragedy : the Russian Revolution, 1891-1924 was actually advertised by David Horowitz, and Clinton acknowledged that it was reading material that he personally refered to on the subject of the Russian Revolution. With these figures putting this work on the pedestal of bourgeois falsification, can you really consider this a source of the utmost accountability? Yes, through out this entire thread, my only source is A People's Tragedy : the Russian Revolution, 1891-1924 <_<

There is actually a remarkably pro-USSR book that I am using as well, Sheila Fitzpatrick's The Russian Revolution as well as a number of others.

The October Revolution was permeated by the events of the attempted coup of Kornilov, who actually had sided with Kerensky and the cadets; the so-called 'democratic' ministers of the Provisional Government, in order to silence the growing strength of the worker and soldier deputies within Petrograd. On the first of September, the day after the Petrograd Soviet had officially announced that Kornilov's army was demoralized and scattered to a point of defeat due to desertions and overall mutiny, a wave of support flooded the Soviet Central Executive Committe from the Urals, the Donbas, the Central Industrial region, the Ukraine, the Baltic, Central Asia, and other municipal locations that all called for the Petrograd Soviet to seize power. They received several resolutions from over 126 local Soviets demanding that this proposition be answered to. Later that day, the Petrograd Soviet officially voted to support the Bolshevik Party, and drastically outvoted the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. It was therefore, a democratic decision based on the worker's sentiments towards Kerensky and his government. No, the chain of events were that Lenin while in hiding in Finland was giving the orders to prepare for an armed uprising. This was in September of 1917 he issued the order (using the Western calender).

He was moving to pre-empt any action taken by the Second Congress of the Soviets.

This is, even admitted by the pro-USSR historian Sheila Fitzpatrick, very contradictory for Lenin to do!

The tide was turning in favor of the Bolsheviks, why have an armed insurrection?

This was the point of view of the Bolsheviks Grigorii Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev. "They thought it irresponsible for the Bolsheviks to seize power by a coup, and unrealistic to think that they could hold power alone. When Zinoviev and Kamenev published these arguments under their own names in a non-Bolshevik daily newspaper )Maxim Gorky's Novaya zhizn' [sic]), Lenin's anger and frustration rose to new heights. This was understandable, since it was not only an act of defiance but also a public announcement that the Bolsheviks were secretly planning an insurrection." (Italics are Fitzpatrick's, The Russian Revolution pg. 63)

It was Lenin's decision to cease power before the congress met.

I don't think that we can denounce the Bolsheviks as the Jacobins. Sure, not with that attitude :P

I think that their actions reflected who their class allengiances were with, and it was clearly with that of the workers. You mean they were allegedly with much less than 20% of the population?

Just to give some perspective, in 1917 there were 184.6 million people (source (http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/population/russia.htm)), so that means that 37 million people at most were workers whereas 147.68 Million were peasants...supposing that people were either peasants or workers. Presumably there were considerably fewer workers, as we know 80% of the population were peasantry.

Think about this logically: if you were leading a revolution, would you want the 37 Million, or the 147.68 million on your side?

Fitzpatrick notes on page 62 of The Russian Revolution that the majority of the peasantry were violently opposed to the Kerensky regime.

I think it is safe to conclude that the class base for the Bolsheviks were the peasantry.

Draft Regulations On Workers’ Control (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/26.htm)

The Salaries of High-Ranking Office Employees and Officials (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/nov/18b.htm) Yeah, it's propaganda.

I don't think any person with a distinct orientation to the bourgeois class would willingly surrender their private property, as the Bolsheviks clearly did after they seized control during the October Revolution. So I hold that it is crude determinism to paint the Bolshevik Party as the enclave of the closet-bourgeoisie due to the social origins of many top-party members. You mean Lenin, the decendent of aristocracy, Trotsky, descendent of a wealthy farmer, and Stalin, son of a petit bourgeois, were all not influenced by this? And that their being petit bourgeois pseudo-intellectuals had no influence on them at all?

Why they're the living disproof of Marx's "Social being determines social consciousness" proposition :lol:

Die Neue Zeit

29th April 2007, 07:39

^^^ Engels was a capitalist, a Marx a bourgeois-turned-lumpenproletarian. :P

Hell, even Fitzpatrick writes: "It may seem remarkable, under these circumstances, that the Bolsheviks' October Coup actually came off." Italics are Fitzpatrick's bold is mine. Fitzpatrick further italicizes some half a dozen mentions of the coup in the span of two pages.

(This quote was on page 63 of The Russian Revolution mind you.)

The only mentions of it being a "popular uprising" are in the propaganda written by the Bolsheviks, and it's logical they would say that!

History appears to have said that it went otherwise. As I've stated, every book I've read on the subject specifically notes that it was a coup rather than a "popular uprising".

Judging based on the material conditions of the time, it is more feasible that it was indeed a coup rather than a "popular uprising".

She is just the left-wing of the mainstream historian HEGEMONY accounts. <_<

Here's a Grade 11 lesson for you, since you prefer bourgeois "history written by victors" over Marxist ones:

http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/classroo...sson2/unit4.htm (http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/classroom/pages/projects/grade11/lesson2/unit4.htm)

The Liberal View... tends to dismiss/underestimate evidence of support for the Bolsheviks.

I refer back to Rosa Luxemburg and HER APPLICATION OF THE BRILLIANT HEGELIAN DIALECTIC TO SPONTANEITY AND ORGANIZATION. The Bolshevik revolutionary-democratic revolution of October 1917 was the perfect example of the dynamics of spontaneity AND organization at work. The July Days PROBABLY WAS an example of the Bolsheviks trying the Blanquist ORGANIZATIONAL approach. THAT FAILED. Even earlier, the SPONTANEOUS February revolution FAILED to set Russia's house in order.

ComradeRed

29th April 2007, 07:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:39 pm
She is just the left-wing of the mainstream historian HEGEMONY accounts. <_<
It appears that every historian is a "bourgeois reactionary" then <_<

And then there is Lenin's propaganda, which obviously professes only truth :lol:

Here's a Grade 11 lesson for you, since you prefer bourgeois "history written by victors" over Marxist ones:

http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/classroo...sson2/unit4.htm (http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/classroom/pages/projects/grade11/lesson2/unit4.htm)

The Liberal View... tends to dismiss/underestimate evidence of support for the Bolsheviks. Oh so that's your basis for calling me "liberal", an 11th grade lesson plan. Solid evidence :lol:

I refer back to Rosa Luxeumburg and HER APPLICATION OF THE BRILLIANT HEGELIAN DIALECTIC TO SPONTANEITY AND ORGANIZATION. The Bolshevik revolutionary-democratic revolution of October 1917 was the perfect example of the dynamics of spontaneity AND organization at work. The July Days PROBABLY WAS an example of the Bolsheviks trying the Blanquist ORGANIZATIONAL approach. THAT FAILED. Even earlier, the SPONTANEOUS February revolution FAILED to set Russia's house in order. ZOMG YOU'RE RIGHT, OBVIOUSLY IT'S THE DIALECTIC AT WORK!

Congratulations, in a paragraph you have solidly rejected materialism for dialectics (and yes, the two are intrinsically incompatible).

Die Neue Zeit

29th April 2007, 07:56

Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 29, 2007 06:47 am--> (ComradeRed @ April 29, 2007 06:47 am)
[email protected] 28, 2007 10:39 pm
She is just the left-wing of the mainstream historian HEGEMONY accounts. <_<
It appears that every historian is a "bourgeois reactionary" then <_<

And then there is Lenin's propaganda, which obviously professes only truth :lol: [/b]
^^^ You've shown a complete LACK of knowledge regarding Lenin's use of the term "propaganda" <_<

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-23823

He defined “propaganda” as the reasoned use of historical and scientific arguments to indoctrinate the educated and enlightened (the attentive and informed publics, in the language of today's social sciences); he defined “agitation” as the use of slogans, parables, and half-truths to exploit the grievances of the uneducated and the unreasonable

Bottom line: "propaganda" IS truth :P

Congratulations, in a paragraph you have solidly rejected materialism for dialectics (and yes, the two are intrinsically incompatible).

As Luxemburg and EVERY OTHER MAJOR REVOLUTIONARY MARXIST allegedly did (by your standards)? :lol:

You remind me so much of the dwindling Karaite Jewish community and the Samaritans, who explicitly accept only a limited amount of literature as "canon," in spite of the fact that history and MATERIAL CONDITIONS relegated their anti-rabbinic stubbornness to the minority (compare with today's three or four global Jewish denominations, all rabbinic).

P.S. - Lenin was wrong on one major thing: the alleged omnipotence of Marx's ideas.

ComradeRed

29th April 2007, 08:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:56 pm
^^^ You've shown a complete LACK of knowledge regarding Lenin's use of the term "propaganda" <_<
I'm not using Lenin's "sophisticated" definition of propaganda. I'm using the conventional sense of the word <_<

Congratulations, in a paragraph you have solidly rejected materialism for dialectics (and yes, the two are intrinsically incompatible).

As Luxemburg and EVERY OTHER MAJOR REVOLUTIONARY MARXIST allegedly did (by your standards)? :lol: Every "major revolutionary" Marxist (other than Marx and Engels) I summarily reject.

Marx and Engels I don't entirely accept either. Some parts of their analysis is independent of dialectics and can be recast using "metaphysical" mathematics. (For this reason I call myself a Mathematical Marxist or a real Scientific Socialist)

Sorry that I'm radical enough to stop and think "Hey, dialectics is idealistic bullocks" <_<

Labor Shall Rule

29th April 2007, 15:00

I would like to establish that it is obvious the Bolsheviks would not of been able to retain control over the state power for more than a week if it was truly 'a coup'. You have to realize that all their enemies; the Mensheviks, the Socialist Revolutionaries, the Cadets, the White Guards, the Czech Legion, were all united, no matter what their aspirations were, in defeating the Soviet Republic.

No, the chain of events were that Lenin while in hiding in Finland was giving the orders to prepare for an armed uprising. This was in September of 1917 he issued the order (using the Western calender).

Well, I basically copied and pasted from a source that wouldn't suggest that.
Timeline of 1917 (http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/events/timeline/1917.htm)

"September 1
A wave of support floods the Soviet Central Executive Committee from the Urals, the Donbas, the Central Industrial region, the Ukraine, Belorussia, Central Asia, etc. 126 local Soviets demand the Petrograd Soviet take power. The Petrograd Soviet adopts a resolution to support the Bolshevik party. The Mensheviks and SRs try to filibuster, but the resulting vote is still devastating: 279 to 115. This brings Bolshevik support to four major cities: Petrograd, Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Kronstadt, and Krasnoyarsk. The number of land seizures by the peasants increases to 958 incidents. Meanwhile, Kerensky openly declares Russia a "Republic", and arrests General Kornilov."

If I am reading this correctly, it appears that there was than outcry for the Petrograd Soviet, which was dominated by the Bolsheviks, to seize control and overthrow the Provisional Government. This is, of course, if historical evidence still has any meaning.

This was the point of view of the Bolsheviks Grigorii Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev. "They thought it irresponsible for the Bolsheviks to seize power by a coup, and unrealistic to think that they could hold power alone. When Zinoviev and Kamenev published these arguments under their own names in a non-Bolshevik daily newspaper )Maxim Gorky's Novaya zhizn' [sic]), Lenin's anger and frustration rose to new heights. This was understandable, since it was not only an act of defiance but also a public announcement that the Bolsheviks were secretly planning an insurrection." (Italics are Fitzpatrick's, The Russian Revolution pg. 63)

Well, Zinoviev and Kamenev were incorrect in refering to it as a coup in the first place, since it was largely a reflection of revolutionary spirit that engulfed the cities after the attempted coup of Kornilov. If I may add my own source, I would refer to Ten Days That Shook The World by John Reed, as an excellent source on the events that surrounded the October Revolution. I would agree, it would of been more tasteful for the Bolsheviks to have built up a larger support base before they seized power, but it is obvious that after the attempt of Kornilov and Kerensky to set up a joint-dictatorship and slaughter the revolutionary workers of Petrograd with the might of their armies, they should not of hesitated in grabbing the helms of the state power.

Yeah, it's propaganda.

Is a decree, or a legally binding command or decision, necessarily an act of spreading information in order to solidify one's position?

ComradeRed

1st May 2007, 01:21

Darg sorry for the lateness of my reply but I've been trying to formulate quantum mechanics as a query language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/query+language) and it's not easy!

Originally posted by RedDali+April 29, 2007 06:00 am--> (RedDali @ April 29, 2007 06:00 am)I would like to establish that it is obvious the Bolsheviks would not of been able to retain control over the state power for more than a week if it was truly 'a coup'. [/b]
Well, the response by the Monarchists and other elements in the Russian society triggered a civil war lasting for years.

The Bolsheviks probably did hold power for considerably less than a week unopposed.

No, the chain of events were that Lenin while in hiding in Finland was giving the orders to prepare for an armed uprising. This was in September of 1917 he issued the order (using the Western calender).

Well, I basically copied and pasted from a source that wouldn't suggest that.
Timeline of 1917 (http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/events/timeline/1917.htm)

"September 1
A wave of support floods the Soviet Central Executive Committee from the Urals, the Donbas, the Central Industrial region, the Ukraine, Belorussia, Central Asia, etc. 126 local Soviets demand the Petrograd Soviet take power. The Petrograd Soviet adopts a resolution to support the Bolshevik party. The Mensheviks and SRs try to filibuster, but the resulting vote is still devastating: 279 to 115. This brings Bolshevik support to four major cities: Petrograd, Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Kronstadt, and Krasnoyarsk. The number of land seizures by the peasants increases to 958 incidents. Meanwhile, Kerensky openly declares Russia a "Republic", and arrests General Kornilov."

If I am reading this correctly, it appears that there was than outcry for the Petrograd Soviet, which was dominated by the Bolsheviks, to seize control and overthrow the Provisional Government. This is, of course, if historical evidence still has any meaning. Yeah Fitzpatrick covers the popularity of Kornilov since he was apparently tied to the unions at the local level. Kerensky's arrest of him was rather bad as it unintentionally made the Bolsheviks more popular.

According to the Marxists.org account there was the event when Lenin advocated the coup:

Originally posted by Marxists.org+--> (Marxists.org)Lenin finishes his work The Impending Catastrophe and How To Combat It (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/index.htm), where he presents a detailed outline of what the Bolsheviks will do to save the country from ruin. Lenin also sends a letter to the Central Committee in both Moscow and Petrograd, explaining The Bolsheviks Must Assume Power. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/sep/14.htm)[/b] The latter work is rather openly advocating a violent action:
[email protected]
The Bolsheviks, having obtained a majority in the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies of both capitals, can and must take state power into their own hands. --emphasis added

Lenin again
Why must the Bolsheviks assume power at this very moment?

Because the impending surrender of Petrograd will make our chances a hundred times less favourable.

And it is not in our power to prevent the surrender of Petrograd while the army is headed by Kerensky and Co.This was a letter sent to the Central Committee and the Petrograd and Moscow Committees Of The R.S.D.L.P.(B.)...not "to the masses" or even the common party member of the Petrograd or the Moscow soviet mind you.

Of course, if one were to lead a coup, one would want one's own people on the job rather than some group of peasants and proletarians.

Well, Zinoviev and Kamenev were incorrect in refering to it as a coup in the first place, since it was largely a reflection of revolutionary spirit that engulfed the cities after the attempted coup of Kornilov. If I may add my own source, I would refer to Ten Days That Shook The World by John Reed, as an excellent source on the events that surrounded the October Revolution. I would agree, it would of been more tasteful for the Bolsheviks to have built up a larger support base before they seized power, but it is obvious that after the attempt of Kornilov and Kerensky to set up a joint-dictatorship and slaughter the revolutionary workers of Petrograd with the might of their armies, they should not of hesitated in grabbing the helms of the state power. According to Mr. Reed, how many people were killed in this "revolution"?

Who were at the Winter palace: the masses or the Red Army?

If it was the former, why did they go at 2 AM rather than when sane people are awake? Unless they were coaxed into it by the Bolsheviks.

Is a decree, or a legally binding command or decision, necessarily an act of spreading information in order to solidify one's position? Looking back at these "decrees", they weren't even issued!

That's why they are drafts. The first one was not issued, the second one limiting the Salaries of High-Ranking Office Employees and Officials was supposedly.

Die Neue Zeit

1st May 2007, 06:07

Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 29, 2007 03:11 am--> (ComradeRed @ April 29, 2007 03:11 am)
[email protected] 28, 2007 06:34 pm
You have yet to respond to my "human wave" remarks...
Oh yes, your "argument" which is:
[The latter because I can't stomach the idea of a revolution implementing Mao's human-wave crap, which goes right back to your "deserve to be slaughtered" comments. Without professional strategy during the revolution, the "slaughtering of sheep" which you so condemn WILL occur.] --emphasis added

That's no argument, that's an assertion.

Further, it doesn't deny the notion the workers are sheep. It essentially assents to the proposition.

That is a reactionary position to state "The emancipation of the workers is the work of the working class themselves and professional strategists!" [/b]
Over in the Politics forum:

May Day means nothing to these mortals (http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/may12007/state234222007430.asp)

These are the people who barely earn their two square meals a day by working in temperatures ranging from 40 degree to 47 degree Celsius in this region. May Day, supposed to celebrate the rights of the working classes, means not a thing to them...

They are construction workers who grind away in the unforgiving climate, to make the lives of their social better-offs that much, well, better. And they belong to the huge unorganised sector of casual workers...

Moreover, there are scores of trade unions which claim to protect the interests of workers. But, apparently, the army of workers in the unorganised sector do not come under their ‘over’-protective wings. Result: Those in the unorganised sector are left to fend for themselves...

Working is even more torturous for workers engaged in road laying. They have not only to work in the gruelling heat of the sun, but also have to take the the searing heat from boiling tar as it is laid on the road. Sangappa, a worker on a road project on the outskirts of the city, showed small blisters on his legs due to the heat. But he has to go on, just to keep his family from starving, he says...

But if past experience is anything to go by, neither the union leaders nor their political masters have any time for these workers who are thus forced to survive on the fringes of society -- and remain firmly stuck there with no help coming from any side.

For the more idealistic bunch here (yourself included), the material conditions are here already, but the guy above doesn't have the time to educate himself; hence the need for an INTERNATIONAL vanguard.

I openly profess the above "reactionary" DIALECTICAL addition, given the empirical evidence against raw spontaneity (as well as against raw Blanquist organization): The emancipation of the workers is the work of the working class themselves THROUGH their international revolutionary party avant-garde.

ComradeRed

1st May 2007, 07:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 09:07 pm
For the more idealistic bunch here (yourself included)...
:lol: How ironic a dialectician is throwing around "You idealist!" as an insult :lol:

...the material conditions are here already... What are the material conditions then?

And if they are present, then why is it that wage slavery is still ubiquitous? Your "mighty" vanguard should have been able to lead the "sheep" to their emancipation by now if it were so.

...but the guy above doesn't have the time to educate himself; hence the need for an INTERNATIONAL vanguard. An assertion, and a dubious one at that. An "international vanguard" would not change this fellow's "education".

There is no logical reason to suppose that a petit bourgeois vanguard would change anything.

Social Being determines Social Consciousness. Remember that? One vanguard, a million, an infinite quantity, no amount would change the social being of a fellow.

And your assertion that it would is pure idealism.

I openly profess the above "reactionary" DIALECTICAL addition, given the empirical evidence against raw spontaneity (as well as against raw Blanquist organization): The emancipation of the workers is the work of the working class themselves and their international revolutionary party avant-garde. Well I'm glad you've come out finally and admitted that you treat the proletariat as little more than sheep to you...an appropriate petit bourgeois response.

The emancipation of the working class is the work of the workers...but mostly the vanguard :lol:

And what did Engels think of this? He actually made some rather interesting statements, a new one to this thread:
From Blanqui's assumption, that any revolution may be made by the outbreak of a small revolutionary minority, follows of itself the necessity of a dictatorship after the success of the venture. This is, of course, a dictatorship, not of the entire revolutionary class, the proletariat, but of the small minority that has made the revolution, and who are themselves previously organized under the dictatorship of one or several individuals. The Program of the Blanquist Fugitives from the Paris Commune (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/06/26.htm) by Fred Engels

"Naturally" what you propose is simply Blanquism with moderation.

In practice what difference there is between your version of Blanquism and "primitive" Blanquism is negligible or nonexistent.

Either the workers emancipate themselves lead by workers or they don't, there is no middle ground where they "kind of" emancipate themselves but "not really".

What you are suggesting is that some small vanguard emancipates the working class as that is how it always turns out in practice. You can deny such an assessment as "primitive" or "raw" or whatever, but that's what empirically happens with the vanguard.

The emancipation of the working class is too important to leave in the hands of self-described shepherds. It is the work of the workers alone.

anomaly

1st May 2007, 08:10

Originally posted by RedDali
This is unhistorical babble that is covered in the sugar-coding of anti-communism. A People's Tragedy : the Russian Revolution, 1891-1924 was actually advertised by David Horowitz, and Clinton acknowledged that it was reading material that he personally refered to on the subject of the Russian Revolution. With these figures putting this work on the pedestal of bourgeois falsification, can you really consider this a source of the utmost accountability?

I must be getting to sleep, as I have a couple finals tomorrow, but I'd like to quickly point out that this form of argument is entirely illogical. You cannot realistically assert that source x is false because dumbass y and z approve of it.

That is akin to saying Nietszche is worthless because Hitler "approved" of his philosophy (in reality, of course, there is no evidence that Hitler ever read a word of Nietszche).

I certainly understand one's concerns at the prospect of a deeply critical account of the Russian revolution. It is not unlike the fiery debate which emerges at the slightest hint of a critique of Marx. Such people and such events are truly believed in by the Left at large.

Die Neue Zeit

2nd May 2007, 04:37

ComradeRed, in response to your coup remarks, maybe you should REALLY stop focusing on that anti-soviet Constituent Assembly and focus on the soviets themselves (my original comment said "you and the bourgeois historians," but they're hopelessly pro-Assembly). syndicat, an anarchist said this in the "Workers' State in America" thread:

And when the Bolsheviks lost the elections to the soviets in the spring of 1918 -- in 19 of 22 cities in European Russia -- they refused to accept the results. They either used armed force to abolish the soviets and replace them with a military revolutionary committee (them), or simply refused to leave office. This is when Lenin started talking about "the dictatorship of the party."

...

Nope. Vesenkha consisted of Bolshevik party cadres, mainly from the professional class, engineers, and trade union bureaucrats, all appointed from above by the Council of People's Commissars. Workers had no say over it. When regional meetings of the regional councils under Vesenkha began talking about having a majority of the delegates elected by the workers in an industry or region, Lenin was livid with rage and forced them to reduce it to no more than one-third.

The government consisted of the Council of People's Commissars at the national level -- a committee of people draw from the professional class and local soviets. The local soviets had been set up originally in Feb-Mar 1917 by the Mensheviks with a top-down structure, concentrating power into the hands of the executive. Professional class people were allowed to campaign for election in factories and they are the people who ended up in control of the executive committees. The plenaries were treated as a rubber stamp. But even here, when the workers voted the Bolshevik majorities out in the spring of 1918, the Bolsheviks just used force to get rid of the soviets.

First the FAILED COUP attempt in July ("July Days"), then the October REVOLUTION (soviets' support), then the disbanding of the anti-soviet Constituent Assembly, and then a tragic coup (against the soviets). My opinion on this? Yes, it's a tragedy, and there are LOTS of lessons to learn from this.

I think it is safe to conclude that the class base for the Bolsheviks were the peasantry.

Then why did the Bolsheviks lose the Constituent Assembly elections to the agrarian SRs? <_< Read more detailed information on the breakdown of Bolshevik support in the Constituent Assembly elections: their support came from the vast majority of urban centers and of soldiers in the "Western Front."