Permanent Revolution

[Eleftherios]

So, what do you think of Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution? I would like to get a good debate going on between the Trotskyists and the Stalinists.

For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about,

http://www.trotsky.net/trotsky_year/perman...revolution.html (http://www.trotsky.net/trotsky_year/permanent_revolution.html)

http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/index.htm

[Leo]

So, what do you think of Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution?

I think it is a theory, and similar theories had a very negative on the proletarian movement. Permanent Revolution basically suggests that the accomplishment of what the Bolsheviks called bourgeois-democratic tasks passes over into proletarian tasks. On the political level, it was a source of Trotsky's economic policy. Trotsky was supporting the idea of industrializing Russia at all costs. Bukharin had said in the 1924-28 faction fights that the implementation of Trotsky's "super-industrialization" strategy could only be carried out by the most elephantine state bureaucracy history had ever seen. When Stalin stole the Trotsky's economic program and put it into practice, Bukharin's prediction was ironically completely confirmed, as Trotsky himself acknowledged in a backhanded way after most of his faction in Russia had capitulated to Stalin. Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution went with the idea of "socialism in one country" much better than with the idea of "world revolution". As for theoretically, Trotsky is simply wrong, the proletariat does not accomplish the tasks of the bourgeoisie because, simply because those tasks are not the tasks of the proletariat and the proletariat is not capable of accomplishing them. The task of the proletariat was [and still is, of course] world revolution, not industrializing Russia or any other "backward" place!

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I think that's where we'll agree to disagree, somewhat.

On the one hand, your shocking stuff regarding Trotsky's "super-industrialization" stuff reminds me of his calls for the militarization of the trade unions, so there is a consistent pattern.

On the other hand, the revolutionary-democratic tasks CAN be carried out by the urban and rural proletariat... BUT ONLY as part of a greater "popular front" with the poor elements of the peasantry (and under Party leadership, of course ;) ).

[Mind you that such a primitive stamocap situation is COMPLETELY different from the revolutionary stamocap of the DOTP itself.]

Besides, didn't Lenin say that the bourgeoisie were incapable of defending March's gains (the ability to carry out the bourgeois-democratic tasks)? That's why he changed the term to "revolutionary-democratic" tasks, because they could be carried out by others (but NOT by the proles in the leading role, unlike what Trotsky said).

[If the bourgeoisie were/are incapable of carrying out the bourgeois-democratic tasks like the SAUDI bourgeoisie, who are the alternatives?]

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 14, 2007 10:45 pm
The task of the proletariat was [and still is, of course] world revolution, not industrializing Russia or any other "backward" place!
Ugh, stop being so petty. You know just as well as I that Trotsky never said that international revolution should be abandoned for industrialization in one country. But what did you want the proletariat in the USSR to do then? Sit and wait for the revolution to spread? Invade other countries?

Building up their own nation economically was key in preserving socialist property relations in their own country, it's not like it was a either-or situation between "either support international revolution or support industrialization". Even Stalin didn't do that, he chose to oppose international revolution and support industrialization.

Not just entirely abandon it. Besides, it's not like one nation can force revolution on others, you said in another thread that it was imperialism to do so.

Contradicting yourself horribly there.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Leninism+--> (Leninism) ...socialist property relations... [/b]

Socialist ... properity ... relations?

Oh, the poverity of "Orthodox Marxism" and the desciples of Lenin. And what would these "socialist properity relations" be? Everyone can tell on closer look that USSR was founded on relations of alienated labor from which the bureaucracy extracted and forced a production of surplus value.

USSR was a society based on the movement of alienated labor... namely, what we call "capitalism".


Hammer
...militarization of the trade unions...

It was militarization of labor - and thus, of workplace.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+June 15, 2007 12:00 am--> (DJ-TC @ June 15, 2007 12:00 am)
[email protected] 14, 2007 11:40 pm
...socialist property relations...

Socialist ... properity ... relations?

Oh, the poverity of "Orthodox Marxism" and the desciples of Lenin. And what would these "socialist properity relations" be? Everyone can tell on closer look that USSR was founded on relations of alienated labor from which the bureaucracy extracted and forced a production of surplus value.

USSR was a society based on the movement of alienated labor... namely, what we call "capitalism". [/b]

You are right somewhat. The Soviet economy even under Stalin's time had only the last two features below, and not the first two (as evidenced by the absence of industrial farming).

I don't know if I've pinned down all the elements of full socialization, so here I go (and please help me):

1) Economies of scale (BIG production to meet social demand as opposed to local needs only, concentration of capital, monopoly, etc.)
2) Economic interdependency (the global "value chain" relationship between BIG retailers and BIG suppliers, for example - or even a big monopoly supplying its own internal production demand through a subsidiary or two)

[The two elements above I know were the only ones Marx specified in Das Kapital.]

3) Ability to MICRO-account for economic activity (accounting systems) - Ever heard of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems?
4) Nationalizations, workers' control, "red flags," etc.

[Regardless of the validity of Lenin's stuff regarding Big Banks as the means to achieve #3, he is spot on in regards to the general premise of BIG accounting.]



If I am correct, then given the specific nature of ADVANCED countries and their increasing ability to exhibit the first three elements, isn't only natural that, for them, socialism is merely the workers' councils controlling state-monopoly-capitalist relations between the worker and the society at large?



[If not, is there any way for you to convince me that the four elements put together without additional criteria cannot "evolve" into socialist economic relations? And I WON'T repeat what I said about the Soviet economy.]

[Lamanov]

No. Workers' councils cannot simply "take over" and "control" and "run" existing relations. They will not simply "change" properity relations by exerting their own collective will, because, through such endeavor they can only destroy all properity relations.

So-called "socialization of production" is a term which is supposed to bring us to a conclusion that workplace in capitalism gained capacity to change social relations, that workers have the collective social power in potentiality.

So unless they tear down existing social relations - capital, i.e. dead labor controling living one - they change nothing in essence. So, the term "socialist properity" makes no sense. "Nationalization", for our project, even less. The first three elements you mentioned are simple technicalities, which by themselves stand for nothing.

Socialist relations are negation of existing relations - not their collective takeover, but their direct opposition.

[Leo]

You know just as well as I that Trotsky never said that international revolution should be abandoned for industrialization in one country.

Obviously he didn't, but you are missing the point here.


But what did you want the proletariat in the USSR to do then? Sit and wait for the revolution to spread?

This is a very hard question. In 1917, all revolutionaries had accepted that had the revolution not spread, the revolution in Russia was doomed. The revolution did not spread, the revolutionary wave was defeated. This caused, however, a much different crisis than what was expected. Rather than the White Armies defeating the Reds or an invasion by major capitalist powers, the revolution itself degenerated because it was stuck, the working class lost the power, the bureaucracy gained the power. By 1921, the working class was already on the defensive, at that point they did what they could do, they struggled.

Now, why is socialism not possible in one country? Because, "[I]t is not only impossible to build socialism in one country, but even to establish its basis. In countries where the proletariat has been victorious, it cannot be a question of realising the conditions for socialism (through the free management of the economy by the workers), it can only be a matter of safeguarding the revolution, which requires the maintenance of all the proletariat's class institutions" maintenance of all the proletariat's class institutions" ('Nature and evolution of the Russian revolution - response to comrade Hennaut', Bilan 35, September 1936)

So what should have been done? First of all, the international revolutionary character of the revolution should have been maintained. Secondly, the proletariat should have maintained the Soviets as their own and their independent institutions. Unfortunately, with the super-industrialization mixed with "socialism in one country", the counter-revolution was complete, the bourgeoisie had already re-established it's rule.


Invade other countries?

Obviously not.


Building up their own nation economically was key in preserving socialist property relations in their own country

No it wasn't. 1) Not even [actually] socialist property relations can be properly established in one country and although workers, through their independent organs, controlled the means of production, in order to establish socialist political property and liquidize alienated-labor, workers' control over the means of had to be world-wide. 2) Workers had already started losing their control over the means of production in 1919.


Even Stalin didn't do that, he chose to oppose international revolution and support industrialization.

Because it made sense to him, it was the logical thing to do for him - from the bourgeois perspective, that is.


Besides, it's not like one nation can force revolution on others, you said in another thread that it was imperialism to do so.

Well no, I said that the USSR doing it in 1940ies was imperialism because USSR was already a capitalist state but it is true, revolution can't be brought from an army from the outside, it has to be the task of the working class to overthrow the bourgeoisie in their part of the world. This, however, doesn't mean that you are going to be friends with the national bourgeoisies in other countries until then! Quite the contrary, until the revolution in other parts of the world, the only possible thing to do is to support them as much as you can.

Hammer;


On the one hand, your shocking stuff regarding Trotsky's "super-industrialization" stuff reminds me of his calls for the militarization of the trade unions, so there is a consistent pattern.

Hmm... I think you are confusing the trade-union debate with the militarization of labor, demands for "compulsory labor service" and such. Both do echo the Trotsky of ultra-industrialization and obviously there is no need to explain the militarization of labor issue. The trade-union debate was very interesting however. Trotsky was saying that trade-unions weren't necessary because the state was a workers' state, workers' interests would never be against it where Lenin said that workers interests did and could come against the interests of the state.


On the other hand, the revolutionary-democratic tasks CAN be carried out by the urban and rural proletariat... BUT ONLY as part of a greater "popular front" with the poor elements of the peasantry (and under Party leadership, of course ;) ).

According to historical materialism, they can't. Why? Because according to historical materialism, modes of production has two phases: ascendant and decadent. During the ascendant period of capitalism, it was still and expanding system, it had "democratic" tasks and those tasks were revolutionary. At this period, proletarian revolution was not possible, as it was said by Marx. When the conquest of the globe by the capitalist mode of production was complete, capitalism started having problems (which I am not really going to talk about here). Thus, the epoch of capitalist decay and communist revolutions had started. Now, under these circumstances, the question is this: are democratic tasks still revolutionary?


I think that's where we'll agree to disagree

I'm cool with agreeing to disagreeing as long as we keep discussing :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 15, 2007 12:38 am
Hmm... I think you are confusing the trade-union debate with the militarization of labor, demands for "compulsory labor service" and such. Both do echo the Trotsky of ultra-industrialization and obviously there is no need to explain the militarization of labor issue. The trade-union debate was very interesting however. Trotsky was saying that trade-unions weren't necessary because the state was a workers' state, workers' interests would never be against it where Lenin said that workers interests did and could come against the interests of the state.

^^^ On the other hand, isn't it logical to abolish trade unions after a proper socialist revolution (if they still exist during the decadent phase of the capitalist mode of production)?

In any event, I think that, for his time, Lenin was SORTA right on the issue of workers' interests in Russia going against the Soviet state's interests, because of the "revolutionary-democratic" tasks (just wrong in how to go about the issue in terms of unions vs. soviets and factory committees, of course ;) ).


Because according to historical materialism, modes of production has two phases: ascendant and decadent. During the ascendant period of capitalism, it was still and expanding system, it had "democratic" tasks and those tasks were revolutionary. At this period, proletarian revolution was not possible, as it was said by Marx.

But can't you distinguish between an exclusively proletarian revolution and something like, say, the French Revolution (but with more emphasis on PETIT-bourgeois activity in the face of a vacillating haute bourgeoisie, in a "popular front" coalition with their peasant elements and with wage earners)? :huh:

Just because a revolution is ignited by workers doesn't mean that it is an exclusively workers' revolution.


When the conquest of the globe by the capitalist mode of production was complete, capitalism started having problems (which I am not really going to talk about here). Thus, the epoch of capitalist decay and communist revolutions had started. Now, under these circumstances, the question is this: are democratic tasks still revolutionary?

The problem, though, is that (IMO) the democratic tasks even in the advanced countries haven't been achieved fully. Look at obstacles to full-scale industrial farming in the US (I think this will be my "poster boy" issue on this board from now on for a variety of issues ;) ). Look at racism. Heck, look at globalization!

In other words, capitalism has NOT yet reached its ascendancy. What you call "epoch of communist revolutions" is what I call "epoch of revolutionary-democratic tasks" (and THIS is what I call "Red October"). Besides, you would be a Trotskyist if you said that Russia was ready for a proper socialist revolution (agitational slogans and descriptive terms aside). ;)



I think that's where we'll agree to disagree

I'm cool with agreeing to disagreeing as long as we keep discussing :)

Don't say goodbye yet! :lol: ;)

[Eleftherios]

Leo Uilleann, I think you are misunderstanding the theory of Permanent Revolution. When Trotsky says that the bourgeoisie-democratic tasks have to be taken up by the proletariat during a socialist revolution, he is still saying that the bourgeoisie is incapable of playing a progressive role and in a backward country the revolutionary-democratic tasks (democracy, national self-determination, land distribution (very important)) can only be accomplished by the proletariat. I will give you an example proving that the theory is correct:

When Fidel Castro took over Cuba, at first all he wanted to do was carry out a bourgeoisie-democratic revolution and had no intention of bringing socialism to Cuba. However, he soon encountered problems that could not be solved under capitalism and had to turn the bourgeoisie-democratic revolution into a socialist one.

I will now give you a more contemporary example:

When Hugo Chavez became President of Venezuela, he still wanted to carry out his revolution within the confines of capitalism. He soon encountered so much opposition from the oligarchy and the imperialists that it became clear that a socialist revolution was needed.

[Leo]

if they still exist during the decadent phase of the capitalist mode of production

Which they, of course do. In the ascendant phase of the capitalist mode of production, trade-unions were organs of the proletariat for two reasons: 1) Permanent reforms were possible. Because of the artisan-like production within the factories, the capitalist made direct profit from the amount of time a worker worked thus making the struggle over working hours a direct struggle over surplus value, making it a revolutionary struggle. Now, however, with the ultra-division of labor in the factories, this is not the case. Also, wage increases were possible then yet because of the discovery of inflation, real wage increases are not possible and struggles are made for less losses rather than gains. 2) There was no or very little union bureaucracy as because of it's role, working in the union was not a safe thing to do for a careerist or a bourgeois-bureaucrat. With the new situation in the world regarding reforms, unions became a nest for bureaucrats, this bureaucracy was integrated into the bourgeoisie and more importantly, most of the actually functioning trade-unions were directly integrated into the state.


On the other hand, isn't it logical to abolish trade unions after a proper socialist revolution?

Yes, as they are mostly a part of the state and the revolutionary situation in which the working class is uniting and workers' councils really means that unions are unable to function in serving the interests of the bourgeoisie.


In any event, I think that, for his time, Lenin was SORTA right on the issue of workers' interests in Russia going against the Soviet state's interests, because of the "revolutionary-democratic" tasks (just wrong in how to go about the issue in terms of unions vs. soviets and factory committees, of course ;) ).

I agree with you in relation to soviets and factor committees against the unions thing. The unions had already developed a considerably ambitious bureaucracy (Kollontai and her friends) which was also integrated into the state. However I disagree about the reason: first of all, the state (which means the organization of a class as a ruling class) under the dictatorship of the proletariat is workers' councils, spread and centralized, controlling the means of production. There is no separate "state". The problem was the existence of the bureaucratic organs which were to prove a perfect nest for the bourgeoisie for re-establishing it's rule.


But can't you distinguish between an exclusively proletarian revolution and something like, say, the French Revolution (but with more emphasis on PETIT-bourgeois activity in the face of a vacillating haute bourgeoisie, in a "popular front" coalition with their peasant elements and with wage earners)?

Of course. The French Revolution was a bourgeois revolution which happened during the ascendant phase of capitalism. A more important example of a proletarian revolution which happened during the ascendant period of capitalism was the experience of the Paris Commune, the first proletarian revolution, happening during the ascendant period of capitalism. However, the communards did not manage to spread the revolution because the material conditions for world revolution was not there yet. There wasn't an international revolutionary wave like the one in the whole world after 1917, there wasn't even a revolutionary wave strong enough to win entire France during the Paris commune. It expressed the proletariat's demand for communism, but it wasn't enough for the establishment of communism itself.


Just because a revolution is ignited by workers doesn't mean that it is an exclusively workers' revolution.

If a revolution is made by workers, if the workers overthrew the bourgeoisie, than it is an exclusively workers' revolution. After all a revolution is the act of one class to overthrow the ruling class.


The problem, though, is that (IMO) the democratic tasks even in the advanced countries haven't been achieved fully. Look at obstacles to full-scale industrial farming in the US (I think this will be my "poster boy" issue on this board from now on for a variety of issues ). Look at racism. Heck, look at globalization!

Racism, nationalism etc. are not really problems which the bourgeoisie has ever been capable of solving. They are rather obstacles in front of the proletarian struggle which can only be destroyed in the picket line. There are bigger issues than industrial farming in the US; there is the issue of the establishment of industrial farming in general, there is still the issue of small land-owners, there is the issue of extra-capitalist markets, artisans and so forth. Yet, those are not necessarily tasks to be achieved by capital. With the conquest of the globe by capital which was more or less completed at the beginning of the 20th century, with the establishment of a world market and with capitalism's inability to expand, simply because there is nowhere to expand anymore, the world saw the crisis of underconsumption because there weren't enough markets. This crisis, and the practical conclusion of different bourgeois factions to this crisis, especially manifested with the example of German imperialism, started a war on what wasn't there: new markets. The war lead to an unthinkable destruction of the productive forces. The second imperialism war was and even bigger destruction and since then, basically the world has not seen peace. To sum up, old relations of production are a growing fetter on the productive forces. There is a massive and still growing gulf between the reality of capitalism in decadence and the enormous potential locked up in the productive forces it has set in motion. Now, there is a tendency to analyze everywhere locally and develop everywhere and reach a capitalism which would only have the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, with no artisan-production, no small peasants, a completely industrialized agriculture and so forth. This is, however, an outlook that misunderstands Marx and such a world is not possible to begin with under bourgeois rule, simply because of the dangers of the damage capitalism is doing to the world, if not anything else. As for the proletariat doing this, although it would seem necessary to try to work this way with the concept of "socialism in one country" (this is why Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution works much better with the idea of socialism in one country) it is really not necessary world-wide and marxists, although obviously analyzing the local tensions and so forth, always analyze the development of the world from a world-wide perspective.


Besides, you would be a Trotskyist if you said that Russia was ready for a proper socialist revolution

This is the crux of the issue. Russia was ready for a proletarian revolution as every place on earth could be under the right political conditions. Nevertheless, establishing socialist relations of production merely in Russia was impossible, as it was impossible to develop socialist relations in anywhere single region of the world in itself. Russia was never only Russia for communists, as Rosa Luxemburg said "In Russia, the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia. And in this sense, the future everywhere belongs to "Bolshevism." This was why all of the Bolsheviks were saying that they were all dead if the revolution did not spread, which did turn out to be true eventually, although probably not in the way most of them expected.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Alcaeos: Except that there was and is no socialist revolution in Venezuela. :P

Read this:

TROTSKY'S THEORY OF PERMANENT REVOLUTION: A LENINIST CRITIQUE (http://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/permrev.htm) (just the intro, and you'll have to buy the book to read the rest :( )

And of course, where the key differences all started:

“Revolutionary Communes” and the Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/ch10.htm)



Leo, I'm still trying to digest your stuff.

[Leo]

Leo Uilleann, I think you are misunderstanding the theory of Permanent Revolution. When Trotsky says that the bourgeoisie-democratic tasks have to be taken up by the proletariat during a socialist revolution, he is still saying that the bourgeoisie is incapable of playing a progressive role and in a backward country the revolutionary-democratic tasks (democracy, national self-determination, land distribution (very important)) can only be accomplished by the proletariat.

I know, that's not the issue. I think you might have misunderstood my argument. Please check this post out. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67601&view=findpost&p=1292332551)


When Fidel Castro took over Cuba, at first all he wanted to do was carry out a bourgeoisie-democratic revolution and had no intention of bringing socialism to Cuba. However, he soon encountered problems that could not be solved under capitalism and had to turn the bourgeoisie-democratic revolution into a socialist one.

I disagree. When Fidel Castro took over Cuba, he was basically just another nationalist who lead a coup d'etat. Soon, he decided that the Russian imperialist block was a more suitable place for the interests of his faction of the Cuban nationalist bourgeoisie and started calling Cuba socialist. Cuba was not and never became actually socialist. It was state-capitalist all along and it still is. This is another discussion which we can open in a different thread if you want.


When Hugo Chavez became President of Venezuela, he still wanted to carry out his revolution within the confines of capitalism. He soon encountered so much opposition from the oligarchy and the imperialists that it became clear that a socialist revolution was needed.

Hugo Chavez is also a representative of one faction of the bourgeoisie in Venezuela, he is pursuing imperialist powers, he was a putshist army commander who got elected into the office. Someone calling themselves socialist and attacking America in public television doesn't make that person actually socialist or anti-imperialist. First of all, both Castro and Chavez have a very close economic relation with American companies. As for the political aspect, they merely have different imperialist allies while trying to pursue their own small imperialist interests.

Yet, this issue is very much connected to my argument about Trotsky's Theory of Permanent Revolution. I had said that this theory fits much better with the idea of socialism in one country rather than international revolution. Now you are trying to prove this theory correct by saying that socialism in one country is possible!

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 07:46 pm
Except that there was and is no socialist revolution in Venezuela. :P


I never said there was. All I was saying was that Hugo Chavez and his supporters realize that "the path is socialism" and "capitalism must be transcended" (Chavez's own words). Chavez even said that he follows Trotsky's line of permanent revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 15, 2007 07:56 pm

When Fidel Castro took over Cuba, at first all he wanted to do was carry out a bourgeoisie-democratic revolution and had no intention of bringing socialism to Cuba. However, he soon encountered problems that could not be solved under capitalism and had to turn the bourgeoisie-democratic revolution into a socialist one.

I disagree. When Fidel Castro took over Cuba, he was basically just another nationalist who lead a coup d'etat. Soon, he decided that the Russian imperialist block was a more suitable place for the interests of his faction of the Cuban nationalist bourgeoisie and started calling Cuba socialist. Cuba was not and never became actually socialist. It was state-capitalist all along and it still is. This is another discussion which we can open in a different thread if you want.


When Hugo Chavez became President of Venezuela, he still wanted to carry out his revolution within the confines of capitalism. He soon encountered so much opposition from the oligarchy and the imperialists that it became clear that a socialist revolution was needed.

Hugo Chavez is also a representative of one faction of the bourgeoisie in Venezuela, he is pursuing imperialist powers, he was a putshist army commander who got elected into the office. Someone calling themselves socialist and attacking America in public television doesn't make that person actually socialist or anti-imperialist. First of all, both Castro and Chavez have a very close economic relation with American companies. As for the political aspect, they merely have different imperialist allies while trying to pursue their own small imperialist interests.

Yet, this issue is very much connected to my argument about Trotsky's Theory of Permanent Revolution. I had said that this theory fits much better with the idea of socialism in one country rather than international revolution. Now you are trying to prove this theory correct by saying that socialism in one country is possible!
^^^ I'm still digesting your reply to my post, but in terms of this particular post of yours, yeah I'm in agreement with you in regards to Chavez and Castro. I actually said elsewhere on this board that Chavez, like Putin, wants his own imperialist interests (and I think this can be tied directly to manufacturing AND energy, with America more and more becoming a consumerist colony to the manufacturers and energy producers).

His self-declaration of being a Trotskyist, I think, is spot on!

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 15, 2007 07:42 pm
The unions had already developed a considerably ambitious bureaucracy (Kollontai and her friends) which was also integrated into the state.
Whoa! I thought that Kollontai was one of the "good guys." How could she be a "bureaucrat"?

[On a related matter, besides Stalin, Tomsky, AND Trotsky, who else in the VCP(B) Central Committee was a "bureaucrat"? Bukharin?]


However I disagree about the reason: first of all, the state (which means the organization of a class as a ruling class) under the dictatorship of the proletariat is workers' councils, spread and centralized, controlling the means of production. There is no separate "state". The problem was the existence of the bureaucratic organs which were to prove a perfect nest for the bourgeoisie for re-establishing it's rule.

On your first comment, that is related to my earlier comments on the PROPER DOTP (which ties in to my "revolutionary stamocap" stuff quite nicely).

As for your second comment, isn't the existence of bureaucratic organs NATURAL in the era of bourgeois-democratic AND EVEN revolutionary-democratic tasks? I alluded to what you said here (so there is no disagreement, unless you have something more detailed to say).



Just because a revolution is ignited by workers doesn't mean that it is an exclusively workers' revolution.

If a revolution is made by workers, if the workers overthrew the bourgeoisie, than it is an exclusively workers' revolution. After all a revolution is the act of one class to overthrow the ruling class.

But peasants constituted the majority of the country. I read your Political Profile in the Politics forum (and posted there to reiterate my "summary" views). Please read my opinion on the class character of the Soviet Union (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67589&view=findpost&p=1292332734):

Founded as a revolutionary-democratic "dictatorship" of the workers and poor peasantry, but things got out of hand with the PETIT-bourgeois bureaucracy (again, I'm in the middle, but this time between the "degenerated workers' state" folks and the "bourgeois state-capitalist" folks :( ).


There are bigger issues than industrial farming in the US; there is the issue of the establishment of industrial farming in general, there is still the issue of small land-owners, there is the issue of extra-capitalist markets, artisans and so forth.

Oh yeah, that's for sure. I only use the US example because there isn't enough public data on EUROPEAN industrial farming (or, rather, LACK THEREOF due to Eastern European and French PEASANTS wallowing in EU subsidies).


Yet, those are not necessarily tasks to be achieved by capital...

Now, there is a tendency to analyze everywhere locally and develop everywhere and reach a capitalism which would only have the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, with no artisan-production, no small peasants, a completely industrialized agriculture and so forth. This is, however, an outlook that misunderstands Marx and such a world is not possible to begin with under bourgeois rule

I'm NOT saying that there will be absolutely NO "small family farmers," artisans, etc. I'm merely saying that, in the future, it is possible for capital to take this primarily dualistic relationship with labour to new heights. The peasants will have been transformed into "small family farmers," and there will still be the "small family farmers," but their overall production on a global scale will be peanuts compared to industrial farming (including aquaculture, mind you ;) ).



Besides, you would be a Trotskyist if you said that Russia was ready for a proper socialist revolution

This is the crux of the issue. Russia was ready for a proletarian revolution as every place on earth could be under the right political conditions. Nevertheless, establishing socialist relations of production merely in Russia was impossible, as it was impossible to develop socialist relations in anywhere single region of the world in itself.

"Trotskyist!" :D ;)

On a more serious note, it's one of those "agree to disagree" items, or maybe not? :huh: What I'm trying to say is that all the relevant conditions, economic and political, have to be there for a proper socialist revolution to occur.

While not resorting to economic reductionism, the thing is that you've got to go back to the paradox/irony/contradiction of capitalist relations spelled out in Das Kapital and reiterated in this post of mine in another thread:

-------------------------------
I don't know if I've pinned down all the elements of full socialization, so here I go (and please help me):

1) Economies of scale (BIG production to meet social demand as opposed to local needs only, concentration of capital, monopoly, etc.)
2) Economic interdependency (the global "value chain" relationship between BIG retailers and BIG suppliers, for example - or even a big monopoly supplying its own internal production demand through a subsidiary or two)

[The two elements above I know were the only ones Marx specified in Das Kapital.]

3) Ability to MICRO-account for economic activity (accounting systems) - Ever heard of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems?
4) Nationalizations, workers' control, "red flags," etc.

[Regardless of the validity of Lenin's stuff regarding Big Banks as the means to achieve #3, he is spot on in regards to the general premise of BIG accounting.]

If I am correct, then given the specific nature of ADVANCED countries and their increasing ability to exhibit the first three elements, isn't only natural that, for them, socialism is merely the workers' councils controlling state-monopoly-capitalist relations between the worker and the society at large?

[If not, is there any way for you to convince me that the four elements put together without additional criteria cannot "evolve" into socialist economic relations?]
-------------------------------

[Leo]

Whoa! I thought that Kollontai was one of the "good guys." How could she be a "bureaucrat"?

She and her opposition represented the interests of the trade-union bureaucracy, not of course a bureaucrat in the, well "traditional" sense. True, she was better in some cases, but the "good guys", communists who put forward the most determined opposition to the rise of the bureaucracy and who were really based on the working class were Myasnikov and his comrades from the Workers' Group.


On a related matter, besides Stalin, Tomsky, AND Trotsky, who else in the VCP(B) Central Committee was a "bureaucrat"? Bukharin?

Zinoviev, Kamanev, Radek, Rykov, Krestinsky, Dzerzhinsky etc.


But peasants constituted the majority of the country.

Yes, but: 1) The centers of the bourgeois regime were in urban areas. 2) The seizure of power by the soviets happened in the urban areas so it was the proletariat who made the revolution.

If you wish, you can call it a proletarian revolution which happened in the %20 of Russia :lol:


I'm NOT saying that there will be absolutely NO "small family farmers," artisans, etc. I'm merely saying that, in the future, it is possible for capital to take this primarily dualistic relationship with labour to new heights. The peasants will have been transformed into "small family farmers," and there will still be the "small family farmers," but their overall production on a global scale will be peanuts compared to industrial farming (including aquaculture, mind you

Of course that's what you are saying, but I don't think this is possible now under the capitalist mode of production. As we agreed, the bourgeoisie is not capable of doing this and this means that what is called tasks of the bourgeoisie can not be realized under any form of capitalism. Under the communist mode of production, it will not be really be a big problem to settle the issue of agriculture but afterwards this will not be a bourgeois task at all anyway - as it will have to do with how best to run the agriculture so that everyone benefits rather than how best to run the agriculture in order to exploit surplus value. In other words all the problems the bourgeoisie can't solve are the issues that can only be solved by the proletariat - but not under capitalism, under a different mode of production. In order to get a more concrete idea, you can look at Marx' quotes about the agricultural commune.


"Trotskyist!" :D ;)

Call me a "Luxemburgist" if you want but not a "Trotskyist"! First of all, I am saying that with capitalist decadence, under the epoch of imperialism, bourgeois-democratic tasks are not revolutionary, secondly I am saying that the problems of the world can be solved under a new mode of production, not the old mode of production only administered by a different class. In other words, I am saying "socialism or barbarism" ;)


What I'm trying to say is that all the relevant conditions, economic and political, have to be there for a proper socialist revolution to occur.


Of course. And all the conditions were ripe for the Russian proletariat, simply read American left-wing communist John Reed's magnificent book, Ten Days That Shook the World. Yet, that's not what I am talking about. What I am saying is that old relations of production are a growing fetter on the productive forces and that there is a massive and still growing gulf between the reality of capitalism in decadence and the enormous potential locked up in the productive forces it has set in motion. This is the condition which, according to Marx, meant that world communist revolution was a material possibility as well as a necessity. Lenin saw that the old relations of production were a growing fetter on the productive forces, he saw that what he called "bourgeois-democratic tasks" were not fulfilled but the conclusion he drew, defending that when the bourgeoisie is not capable of fulfilling those "tasks" under the mode of production which they are the global ruling class, other classes would be able to do what the bourgeoisie can't under the capitalist mode of production was mistaken, and this is why his views on state-capitalism, obviously connected to this issue, were mistaken as well. Because the fact that the bourgeoisie was not capable of is not capable of fulfilling the "bourgeois-democratic tasks" was, and still is the precise reason why a new mode of production is necessary and why the epoch we are living in is the epoch of capitalist decadence and communist revolutions.


1) Economies of scale
2) Economic interdependency

Those two are definately present.


Ever heard of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems?

No, but I'll ask my father, he is unemployed and has quite a lot of time to learn about things like that.


4) workers' control, "red flags," etc.

Those, of course, have to do with the specific period and class struggle within the decadence of capitalism, whether it is revolutionary, counter-revolutionary or non-revolutionary.


If I am correct, then given the specific nature of ADVANCED countries and their increasing ability to exhibit the first three elements, isn't only natural that, for them, socialism is merely the workers' councils controlling state-monopoly-capitalist relations between the worker and the society at large?

No, because first of all, you can't really analyze divide the world into advanced and backward countries when analyzing the prospects for communist revolution as revolution can only be succesful if it spreads. Secondly, in the world-wide level, the situation is much more than workers' managing capitalist economies (which occasionally takes place within capitalism under the name of self-management): we are talking about an entirely new mode of production. The production level in the world is actually extremely high, so much that capitalism has to to produce lots of unnecessary and unproductive products. There is a world market, all economies depend on each other, capital captured the whole globe. However this doesn't mean that now the only thing we need is workers' to manage this system as it is the system that doesn't work, it is not because the ruling class is lazy or not capable, it is because the system is decadent and the existing mode of production needs to be replaced with a new mode of production.


If not, is there any way for you to convince me that the four elements put together without additional criteria cannot "evolve" into socialist economic relations?

As I said, because self-management in a capitalist system does not actually change anything, it is what is cleverly called self-exploitation, labor is still alienated and so forth.

If you want a more concrete example, perhaps look at the example of self-management in Yugoslavia, what was self-managed (although to be honest I don't know how much it really was self-managed) was capitalism and the existing economic relations in Yugoslavia didn't evolve into socialist economic relations.

As for the additional criteria? I think it is actually abolishing the old economic relations and this can only be done until world communist revolution takes place. As for the question, what to do until the revolution spreads, I will quote Bilan again: "In countries where the proletariat has been victorious, it cannot be a question of realizing the conditions for socialism (through the free management of the economy by the workers), it can only be a matter of safeguarding the revolution, which requires the maintenance of all the proletariat's class institutions."

[gilhyle]

Very little of this discussion seems to be actually about the theory of permanent revolution. Consider for example the actions of the COmmunist Party in Chile part of Allende's Government elected in 1970. In the face of the development of the cordones industrial, they refused to move on from democratic tasks. They argued that the popular front must focus on developing the institutions of democracy and some basic social democratic reforms. There is a great documentary somewhere with film of representatives of the Government appearing before workers representatives, who tell them unless they arm the workers they are leaving the army in charge. They refuse.

Now that is what the theory of permanent revolution is about. The question is this. When a government is brought to power (however) in a semi colonial country on a programme of developing democracy and resolving the land question, what should the perspective of revoltionaries be.

There are three answers : the Menshivk/Kautsky/Stalinist answer - stick with the popular front, install democracy hold tight, avoid excessive radicalism;

there is Lenin's answer - if the bourgeoisie is weak then the goveremnt could be a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, in which case the matter must be judged concretely and there is no way to say in advance what should be done

and then there is Trotsky's answer - in the imperialist epoch the proletarian revolution is on the agenda in all countries because of the uneven and combined nature of the development of capitalism as a world wide mode of production - for that reason, and because of the weakness of semi colonial bourgeoisies, if you dont go beyond the popular front your country will, more likely than not, go backwards and not achieve the democratic tasks the government has set itself.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:11 pm
Very little of this discussion seems to be actually about the theory of permanent revolution. Consider for example the actions of the COmmunist Party in Chile part of Allende's Government elected in 1970. In the face of the development of the cordones industrial, they refused to move on from democratic tasks. They argued that the popular front must focus on developing the institutions of democracy and some basic social democratic reforms. There is a great documentary somewhere with film of representatives of the Government appearing before workers representatives, who tell them unless they arm the workers they are leaving the army in charge. They refuse.

Now that is what the theory of permanent revolution is about. The question is this. When a government is brought to power (however) in a semi colonial country on a programme of developing democracy and resolving the land question, what should the perspective of revoltionaries be.

There are three answers : the Menshivk/Kautsky/Stalinist answer - stick with the popular front, install democracy hold tight, avoid excessive radicalism;

there is Lenin's answer - if the bourgeoisie is weak then the goveremnt could be a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, in which case the matter must be judged concretely and there is no way to say in advance what should be done

and then there is Trotsky's answer - in the imperialist epoch the proletarian revolution is on the agenda in all countries because of the uneven and combined nature of the development of capitalism as a world wide mode of production - for that reason, and because of the weakness of semi colonial bourgeoisies, if you dont go beyond the popular front your country will, more likely than not, go backwards and not achieve the democratic tasks the government has set itself.
Lenin actually ended up in broad agreement with Trotsky later on, and had made note that his "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" was outdated. I read this in Lenin and Trotsky: What they Really Stood For by Alan Woods and Ted Grant. I busy right now, but I will get to citing it later.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Axel1917, just wait for Severian to post here on this topic. In spite of the words being said, in terms of policy-making, it was Trotsky who temporarily realized the errors of his ways.




Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 15, 2007 09:57 pm
Secondly, in the world-wide level, the situation is much more than workers' managing capitalist economies (which occasionally takes place within capitalism under the name of self-management): we are talking about an entirely new mode of production. The production level in the world is actually extremely high, so much that capitalism has to to produce lots of unnecessary and unproductive products. There is a world market, all economies depend on each other, capital captured the whole globe. However this doesn't mean that now the only thing we need is workers' to manage this system as it is the system that doesn't work, it is not because the ruling class is lazy or not capable, it is because the system is decadent and the existing mode of production needs to be replaced with a new mode of production.


If not, is there any way for you to convince me that the four elements put together without additional criteria cannot "evolve" into socialist economic relations?

As I said, because self-management in a capitalist system does not actually change anything, it is what is cleverly called self-exploitation, labor is still alienated and so forth.

If you want a more concrete example, perhaps look at the example of self-management in Yugoslavia, what was self-managed (although to be honest I don't know how much it really was self-managed) was capitalism and the existing economic relations in Yugoslavia didn't evolve into socialist economic relations.

As for the additional criteria? I think it is actually abolishing the old economic relations and this can only be done until world communist revolution takes place. As for the question, what to do until the revolution spreads, I will quote Bilan again: "In countries where the proletariat has been victorious, it cannot be a question of realizing the conditions for socialism (through the free management of the economy by the workers), it can only be a matter of safeguarding the revolution, which requires the maintenance of all the proletariat's class institutions."
It looks like I've got LOTS to learn about "modes of production," Leo, regardless of the outcome of agreement or disagreement with what you've said in detail. :(

I think it really boils down to this (which perhaps I can't get): What is the difference between socialist mode of production and this:

"On the one hand the capitalist system eliminated all private forms of production (i.e. production in which the individual produces products for his own needs). Under capitalism almost all forms of production are socialised (i.e. production organised to produce products for society). On the other hand the ownership and control of the means of production is in the hands of private individuals who act not in the interests of society but in the interests of capital." (http://www.atholbooks.org/archives/kapital/kapital_review_eight.php)

At least, the difference other than ownership and control???

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 15, 2007 12:00 am
Oh, the poverity of "Orthodox Marxism" and the desciples of Lenin. And what would these "socialist properity relations" be? Everyone can tell on closer look that USSR was founded on relations of alienated labor from which the bureaucracy extracted and forced a production of surplus value.
First of all, what the hell are you talking about? You are the Orthodox Marxist here, not me.

Secondly, "relations of alienated labor" is very vague, of course it's not really surprising that you used that term, since that's what Orthodox Marxists are best at, using vague terms to muddy the subject.

The bureaucracy did extract surplus value from the labor, but so would any other socialist state, since surplus value is needed to increase capital and invest in means such as pensions and other things that are required in a socialist society.

Being against any entity taking the surplus value of labor is like being against progress, because without it no capital expansion can happen, which means that the material conditions aren't going to expand, which means that the nation stays a shithole.

If no surplus value was extracted by the state machinery (not the bureaucracy) then the five year plans wouldn't have happened, and the USSR would've stayed a shithole.

The point is not that surplus value is being extracted, the point is which entity is doing the extracting. In the USSR it was the Stalinist state-machinery, and the bureaucracy later on (after Stalin purged both the state-machinery and bureaucracy and incorporated the bureaucracy and state in one entity), so of course the extracted value was going to end up in bad hands.

But what if that entity was a democratically directly elected, subject to recall at all times, state-machinery?

That's socialism.


USSR was a society based on the movement of alienated labor... namely, what we call "capitalism".


Yeah, that's why the USSR also went through a depression in its economy while all the other capitalist states were going through the same....oh wait.


So unless they tear down existing social relations - capital, i.e. dead labor controling living one - they change nothing in essence. So, the term "socialist properity" makes no sense. "Nationalization", for our project, even less. The first three elements you mentioned are simple technicalities, which by themselves stand for nothing.

Socialist relations are negation of existing relations - not their collective takeover, but their direct opposition.

Your whole talk of "social relations" is so vague and meaningless, I'm not even sure if you know what you're talking about.

Capitalism is not alienated labor, alienation in the labor process is a by-product of capitalism because the worker has no say over his own labor-power and the value he produces. In a socialist society, with a socialist state-machinery, this would not be the case since the worker has control over his own labor.

His labor is no longer alienated since he controls the means of production through the machinery of political power, be it councils, soviets, whatever you want to call it.

[Leo]

Hammer;


I think it really boils down to this (which perhaps I can't get): What is the difference between socialist mode of production and this:

"On the one hand the capitalist system eliminated all private forms of production (i.e. production in which the individual produces products for his own needs). Under capitalism almost all forms of production are socialised (i.e. production organised to produce products for society). On the other hand the ownership and control of the means of production is in the hands of private individuals who act not in the interests of society but in the interests of capital."

Well, some "Marxists", mostly Trotskyists, have this tendency to see every form of nationalization as a step towards socialism. This is obviously something Marx and Engels fought against within the workers' movement before the existence of Trotskyism.

Now, the difference is this: state control and nationalization doesn't mean that the forms of production are not socialized, production is not organized to produce products for the society, because it is still a bourgeois society, and production is organized still for the interests of the bourgeoisie. Even when you look at the most common cycle, the state nationalizes enterprises which are not profitable, it makes the enterprise profitable and then the enterprise is privatized again. Engels says in "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.":

"The transformation, either into joint stock companies and trusts, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts this is obvious. And the modern state, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers, proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head."

Then comes the often misunderstood and manipulated part: "State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution." Which is really a prediction of state-capitalism and communist revoution in decadence, similar to the argument regarding alienation of labor being the premise of it's emancipation yet it is twisted into meaning that in a system with full state-ownership, all that needs to change is the leadership which is very far away from the truth and is a very idealistic way of analyzing capitalism.

The bottom line is, neither the monopolies nor the state ever actually produces for the society more than the private capitalist. This does not have to do with who is running the state and monopolies, it has to do with what the state and monopolies actually are and on the micro level, they are not at all different from the enterprise of the private capitalist. It is not the people who run the capitalist mechanism that cause problems but the mechanism itself, and both monopolies and bourgeois states are obviously parts of this mechanism.

As for the new mode of production: that will be the actual mode of production in which production will be organized by the proletariat to produce products for society. The thing is, under the capitalist mode of production, under the capitalist economy, under capitalism this isn't possible. The new mode of production is when a new class organizes the mode of production itself: this means an entirely different mode of production from and a superior mode of production to the old capitalist mode of production which is abolished. Now, the question remains: is this possible and the answer is that it is possible only if it is world-wide phenomenon.

gilhyle;


Very little of this discussion seems to be actually about the theory of permanent revolution. Consider for example the actions of the COmmunist Party in Chile part of Allende's Government elected in 1970. In the face of the development of the cordones industrial, they refused to move on from democratic tasks. They argued that the popular front must focus on developing the institutions of democracy and some basic social democratic reforms. There is a great documentary somewhere with film of representatives of the Government appearing before workers representatives, who tell them unless they arm the workers they are leaving the army in charge. They refuse.

Now that is what the theory of permanent revolution is about.

I know, that is the problem. Allende's government was a bourgeois government which was only allied with the Russian imperialist pole and that was what caused the coup d'etat. There wasn't a revolution going on whatsoever. However, Trotskyists see it as a "step forward in democracy" but emphasize that "more steps need to be taken". In the end, the position was supporting Russian imperialism, hoping that "more steps will be taken someday" as it was obviously "better" because there was state-property.

As I said, the theory of Permanent Revolution really boils down to local steps to be taken in individual countries. It leaves the call for international revolution economically completely baseless, reducing it to a merely idealist argument, and really it is a much more suitable theory for arguing for "socialism in one country".


Lenin actually ended up in broad agreement with Trotsky later on, and had made note that his "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" was outdated. I read this in Lenin and Trotsky: What they Really Stood For by Alan Woods and Ted Grant. I busy right now, but I will get to citing it later.

I don't think this is true. As far as I recall, the last debate which was related to this issue was in 1920, the trade-union debate. Lenin was criticizing Trotsky quite harshly on the issue. I remember that he came to a general agreement with Trotsky in 1917 (hence, the famous line: Lenin became a Trotskyist) however he still had serious disagreements. I think that both of them held a mistaken line, however Lenin's line at least recognizes some truths where Trotsky's theory is completely out of line.

Leninism;


First of all, what the hell are you talking about? You are the Orthodox Marxist here, not me.

I think DJ-TC meant that in the historical sense as in Kautsky's "orthodoxy" in the Second International.


The bureaucracy did extract surplus value from the labor, but so would any other socialist state, since surplus value is needed to increase capital and invest in means such as pensions and other things that are required in a socialist society.

You are talking about a "socialist" state with a capitalist economy. You are trying to justify the USSR by saying that "any other socialist state" would act the same way. You are completely in line with "socialism in one country".


Being against any entity taking the surplus value of labor is like being against progress, because without it no capital expansion can happen, which means that the material conditions aren't going to expand, which means that the nation stays a shithole.

That's exactly why you can't have socialism in a single "nation".


If no surplus value was extracted by the state machinery (not the bureaucracy) then the five year plans wouldn't have happened, and the USSR would've stayed a shithole.

Probably not, it just would not have became the major imperialist power it was.


The point is not that surplus value is being extracted, the point is which entity is doing the extracting. In the USSR it was the Stalinist state-machinery, and the bureaucracy later on (after Stalin purged both the state-machinery and bureaucracy and incorporated the bureaucracy and state in one entity), so of course the extracted value was going to end up in bad hands.

But what if that entity was a democratically directly elected, subject to recall at all times, state-machinery?

That's socialism.

No, it's not.

First of all, you are arguing again that socialism in one country is possible. Secondly, all you seem to be arguing for in the bottom line is to merge the elections in the West and state ownership in the USSR. Thirdly, you are coming down to saying that famous "the crisis of humanity is the crisis of leadership" line. This is a very bad direction to take. It can lead to saying that the capitalist system is not bad, the problem is the individuals who run it, the problem is who the bourgeoisie is. This was probably how the infamous transition from Trotskyism to neo-conservatism was possible. Lastly it is not true and it is a completely idealist understanding: it is not a question of whether the bourgeois-bureaucrats are elected or not, it is a question of who has power, who rules directly, it is a question of "which class".


Yeah, that's why the USSR also went through a depression in its economy while all the other capitalist states were going through the same....oh wait.

Other capitalist states too had experienced lots of economic problems. However, the collapse of the Stalinist ideology was the expression of the collapse of the Russian imperialist pole, not the Russian capitalist economy, not even Russian imperialism by itself.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 14, 2007 10:45 pm

So, what do you think of Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution?

I think it is a theory, and similar theories had a very negative on the proletarian movement. Permanent Revolution basically suggests that the accomplishment of what the Bolsheviks called bourgeois-democratic tasks passes over into proletarian tasks. On the political level, it was a source of Trotsky's economic policy. Trotsky was supporting the idea of industrializing Russia at all costs. Bukharin had said in the 1924-28 faction fights that the implementation of Trotsky's "super-industrialization" strategy could only be carried out by the most elephantine state bureaucracy history had ever seen. When Stalin stole the Trotsky's economic program and put it into practice, Bukharin's prediction was ironically completely confirmed, as Trotsky himself acknowledged in a backhanded way after most of his faction in Russia had capitulated to Stalin. Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution went with the idea of "socialism in one country" much better than with the idea of "world revolution". As for theoretically, Trotsky is simply wrong, the proletariat does not accomplish the tasks of the bourgeoisie because, simply because those tasks are not the tasks of the proletariat and the proletariat is not capable of accomplishing them. The task of the proletariat was [and still is, of course] world revolution, not industrializing Russia or any other "backward" place!
Let me go back then to Leo Uillean's original observations.

Firstly, Trotsky did not advocate super-industrialization. He advocacted balanced development with the emphasis on light industry. Certainly he took the view (for example in his 1923 Theses on Industry) that the development of industry was the key to maintianing working class power and developing agriculture in a socialist rather than a capitalist direction. Certainly, he refused to argue that the USSR should have no economic policy just because it needs an international revolution to build socialism. But there is a big gap between believing in socialism in one country and believing a workers sate should have an economic policy. The view Leo appears to support would lead towards the conclusion of avoiding political power in any country until it is available in all(or most).

Secondly, Leo claims the proletariat and the peasantry cannot attain bourgeois political tasks. IT is a common feature of history that rising classes advocate the ideals of the predecessor ruling class, and can even attain them along the way to power. What is it in the nature of the working class that would prevent it participating in a political action which led to the establishment of equality before the law, representative democracy, freedom of speech, resolution of the land question. Surely history shows us innumerable examples of the working class taking a leading role in the fight for these bourgeois political goals ? Feb 1917 did happen. Leo's theory seems to deny that it can happen. The point of the theory of permanent revolution is to deal with the fact that this does happen.

I understand that Leo's position can lead to the view (which I would charaterise - no surprise here - as sectarian) that the working class should stick to its programme of workers revolutioon and not participate in bourgeois struggles. It can also lead to the view that communists must first wait for the bourgeoisie to complete there tasks. The two views appear at the opposite ends of the communist spectrum - one view conservative, waiting, the other apparently radical, advocating socialist revolution....but also waiting.

By contrast with both views the Trotskyist position is about participating in an effort to transform the character of a struggle. This is more often unsuccessful than successful. It is very difficult. But not for that reason wrong.

On Hammer's point, I know the claim is often made that Lenin conformed to Trotsky and this is based on Trotsky's polemics in the Third International After Lenin. But I am not convinced. I remember participating in a debate some years ago with some Turkish comrades from a party whose name I dont recall who advocated strongly the democratic Dictatorship idea. I think it still has some merit.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 16, 2007 08:20 am
"The transformation, either into joint stock companies and trusts, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts this is obvious. And the modern state, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers, proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head."

Then comes the often misunderstood and manipulated part: "State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution." Which is really a prediction of state-capitalism and communist revoution in decadence, similar to the argument regarding alienation of labor being the premise of it's emancipation yet it is twisted into meaning that in a system with full state-ownership, all that needs to change is the leadership which is very far away from the truth and is a very idealistic way of analyzing capitalism.

The bottom line is, neither the monopolies nor the state ever actually produces for the society more than the private capitalist. This does not have to do with who is running the state and monopolies, it has to do with what the state and monopolies actually are and on the micro level, they are not at all different from the enterprise of the private capitalist. It is not the people who run the capitalist mechanism that cause problems but the mechanism itself, and both monopolies and bourgeois states are obviously parts of this mechanism.

As for the new mode of production: that will be the actual mode of production in which production will be organized by the proletariat to produce products for society. The thing is, under the capitalist mode of production, under the capitalist economy, under capitalism this isn't possible. The new mode of production is when a new class organizes the mode of production itself: this means an entirely different mode of production from and a superior mode of production to the old capitalist mode of production which is abolished. Now, the question remains: is this possible and the answer is that it is possible only if it is world-wide phenomenon.
Now I'm seeing your point a bit. Contextually speaking, Engels said this immediately below that paragraph:


This solution can only consist in the practical recognition of the social nature of the modern forces of production, and therefore in the harmonizing with the socialized character of the means of production. And this can only come about by society openly and directly taking possession of the productive forces which have outgrown all control, except that of society as a whole. The social character of the means of production and of the products today reacts against the producers, periodically disrupts all production and exchange, acts only like a law of Nature working blindly, forcibly, destructively. But, with the taking over by society of the productive forces, the social character of the means of production and of the products will be utilized by the producers with a perfect understanding of its nature, and instead of being a source of disturbance and periodical collapse, will become the most powerful lever of production itself.

And this is where my "tricameral" stuff comes in, right?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by gilhyle+June 16, 2007 05:55 pm--> (gilhyle @ June 16, 2007 05:55 pm) Certainly, he refused to argue that the USSR should have no economic policy just because it needs an international revolution to build socialism. But there is a big gap between believing in socialism in one country and believing a workers state should have an economic policy. The view Leo appears to support would lead towards the conclusion of avoiding political power in any country until it is available in all(or most).

Secondly, Leo claims the proletariat and the peasantry cannot attain bourgeois political tasks. It is a common feature of history that rising classes advocate the ideals of the predecessor ruling class, and can even attain them along the way to power. What is it in the nature of the working class that would prevent it participating in a political action which led to the establishment of equality before the law, representative democracy, freedom of speech, resolution of the land question. Surely history shows us innumerable examples of the working class taking a leading role in the fight for these bourgeois political goals ? Feb 1917 did happen. Leo's theory seems to deny that it can happen.

...

I understand that Leo's position can lead to the view (which I would characterise - no surprise here - as sectarian) that the working class should stick to its programme of workers revolution and not participate in bourgeois struggles. It can also lead to the view that communists must first wait for the bourgeoisie to complete their tasks. The two views appear at the opposite ends of the communist spectrum - one view conservative, waiting, the other apparently radical, advocating socialist revolution....but also waiting.

By contrast with both views the Trotskyist position is about participating in an effort to transform the character of a struggle. This is more often unsuccessful than successful. It is very difficult. But not for that reason wrong. [/b]

I think that, above all else, is why I agree to disagree with Leo a bit, regardless of the side issue of the mode of production and greater agreement with what he says about that (which I will get to learn more about).

Again, I point to the issue of Saudi Arabia, where, despite the validity of his "businessmen" remarks, there are plenty of bourgeois tasks unaccomplished:

1) Separation of mosque and state (as differentiated from the more radical task of separating school/madrassa from mosque altogether, a sore point for the Wahabbi jihadists)
2) FORMAL equality before the law (because, as we know, American celebrities are held in higher regard before the law than the average American, "whites" before minorities, etc.)
3) Representative democracy
4) Freedom of speech, etc.

On the other hand, in regards to your remarks that "communists must first wait for the bourgeoisie to complete their tasks," Leo didn't advocate that or imply such advocation:


Leo
As we agreed, the bourgeoisie is not capable of doing this and this means that what is called tasks of the bourgeoisie can not be realized under any form of capitalism. Under the communist mode of production, it will not be really be a big problem to settle the issue of agriculture but afterwards this will not be a bourgeois task at all anyway - as it will have to do with how best to run the agriculture so that everyone benefits rather than how best to run the agriculture in order to exploit surplus value. In other words all the problems the bourgeoisie can't solve are the issues that can only be solved by the proletariat - but not under capitalism, under a different mode of production. In order to get a more concrete idea, you can look at Marx' quotes about the agricultural commune.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Hammer+June 16, 2007 05:47 am--> (Hammer @ June 16, 2007 05:47 am) Axel1917, just wait for Severian to post here on this topic. In spite of the words being said, in terms of policy-making, it was Trotsky who temporarily realized the errors of his ways.




Leo [email protected] 15, 2007 09:57 pm
Secondly, in the world-wide level, the situaisttion is much more than workers' managing capitalist economies (which occasionally takes place within capitalism under the name of self-management): we are talking about an entirely new mode of production. The production level in the world is actually extremely high, so much that capitalism has to to produce lots of unnecessary and unproductive products. There is a world market, all economies depend on each other, capital captured the whole globe. However this doesn't mean that now the only thing we need is workers' to manage this system as it is the system that doesn't work, it is not because the ruling class is lazy or not capable, it is because the system is decadent and the existing mode of production needs to be replaced with a new mode of production.


If not, is there any way for you to convince me that the four elements put together without additional criteria cannot "evolve" into socialist economic relations?

As I said, because self-management in a capitalist system does not actually change anything, it is what is cleverly called self-exploitation, labor is still alienated and so forth.

If you want a more concrete example, perhaps look at the example of self-management in Yugoslavia, what was self-managed (although to be honest I don't know how much it really was self-managed) was capitalism and the existing economic relations in Yugoslavia didn't evolve into socialist economic relations.

As for the additional criteria? I think it is actually abolishing the old economic relations and this can only be done until world communist revolution takes place. As for the question, what to do until the revolution spreads, I will quote Bilan again: "In countries where the proletariat has been victorious, it cannot be a question of realizing the conditions for socialism (through the free management of the economy by the workers), it can only be a matter of safeguarding the revolution, which requires the maintenance of all the proletariat's class institutions."
It looks like I've got LOTS to learn about "modes of production," Leo, regardless of the outcome of agreement or disagreement with what you've said in detail. :(

I think it really boils down to this (which perhaps I can't get): What is the difference between socialist mode of production and this:

"On the one hand the capitalist system eliminated all private forms of production (i.e. production in which the individual produces products for his own needs). Under capitalism almost all forms of production are socialised (i.e. production organised to produce products for society). On the other hand the ownership and control of the means of production is in the hands of private individuals who act not in the interests of society but in the interests of capital." (http://www.atholbooks.org/archives/kapital/kapital_review_eight.php)

At least, the difference other than ownership and control??? [/b]
The citation is at http://www.marxist.com/lenin-trotsky-stali...ohnstone-46.htm (http://www.marxist.com/lenin-trotsky-stalinism-johnstone-46.htm)

I don't think I will be impressed by whatever Severian says, as the American SWP rejects the theory of permanent revolution, a theory which continues to be proven to this very day. I have even heard that the American SWP supports the old "Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry," which was rejected by Lenin himself long ago. If that was behind the times in 1917, it is infinitely more obsolete 90 years later.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:20 pm
Leo didn't advocate that or imply such advocation:


I agree that Leo never advocated such a thing. I suggested, rather, that his views could lead to that pattern of behaviour. Perhaps I wanted clear enough.

What I think is still interesting about the Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasanty idea is that Trotsky's position depends on the idea of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism (although the early version of his theory in Results and Prospects did not rely on this). As imperialism has proven a more variegated epoch than originally conceived it has become necessary to be more cautious about when/how one moves on from revolutionary democratic transformations than Trotsky tended to allow.

Trotsky wrote as follows:

Does it follow from what has been said that all the countries of the world in one way or another are ripe for revolution.....History is not made to order. A country can become ripe for the dictatorship of the proletariat not only before it is ripe for the construction of socialism , but even before it is ripe for far-reaching socialization measures. One must not proceed from a pre-conceived harmony of social development.....no country in the world can build socialism within its own national limits...Does this mean at least that every country is ripe for ....the dictatorship of the proletariat ? No, this is not what it means. ....Under the conditions of the imperialist epoch the national democratic revolution can be carried through to a vicotrious end only when the social and political relationships of the country are mature for putting the proletariat in power as the leader of the masses of the people.

P255-256 The Permanent Revolution & Results and Prospects, Pathfinder 1969

The last sentence is a one sentence summary of the theory of permanent revolution. I think it at least theoretically possible that the democratic tasks could be achieved in a semi-colonial country with significant mass invovlement and without clear proletarian leadership and this could happen particularly in a period of prosperity as imperialism has shown itself capable of. This is the sense in which Lenin's concept is still relevant.

[Leo]

gilhyle;


Firstly, Trotsky did not advocate super-industrialization.

He certainly did (although I don't think that's what he called it), that was the whole issue of the industrialization debate, that was the whole reason why he said that "An alliance with Stalin against Bukharin? Maybe but an alliance with Bukharin against the center? Never!". That was the whole reason why what Stalin started doing in the industrialization was called "Stalin's left-turn".


Certainly, he refused to argue that the USSR should have no economic policy just because it needs an international revolution to build socialism. But there is a big gap between believing in socialism in one country and believing a workers sate should have an economic policy.

What sort of an economic policy are we talking about here? The first and foremost task of the world proletariat when it seizes power is to abolish the old relations of production and replace them with the communist mode of production, in the economical level. This is something that can only be possible if it is world-wide. If you think that by economical policy, you mean a communist economical policy, then you accept that communist relations of production can be established in one country, then you accept the theory of socialism in one country. However the economical policy you are talking about, the economical policy Trotsky had and Stalin put into practice, was fully capitalist.

As I said before, what is necessary is the world-wide establishment of new relations of production. Taking power in one part of the world is winning a battle, not winning the war. Thus, "in countries where the proletariat has been victorious, it cannot be a question of realizing the conditions for socialism (through the free management of the economy by the workers), it can only be a matter of safeguarding the revolution, which requires the maintenance of all the proletariat's class institutions.". The bourgeois state has to be smashed, the rise of the bourgeoisie, the bureaucracy etc. should be prevented let alone being allowed to rise to a level where they destroy proletariat's class institutions, the regime has to protect it's international revolutionary character always, workers and communists in all countries should be completely supported. You say:


The view Leo appears to support would lead towards the conclusion of avoiding political power in any country until it is available in all(or most).

Not at all! The exact point I am trying to make is that the proletariat is very much capable of taking political power in singe parts of the world however it is not capable of establishing socialist relations of production in single parts of the world as this is a task which can be fulfilled only world-wide.

Now, back to the original issue: will the workers in a part of the world in which they had been victorious have an economical policy? Certainly they will. Nevertheless, it is important to note is that what determines this economic policy in this case will be the political situation, the policy will be the economical policy which was made to suit the political tasks of the proletariat in the part of the world in which they have been victorious, such as maintaining of all the proletariat's class institutions, smashing the bourgeoisie state, preventing the rise of bourgeoisie, bureaucracy and so forth, protecting the international revolutionary character of the regime, completely supporting the workers and communists in all other parts of the world...


Secondly, Leo claims the proletariat and the peasantry cannot attain bourgeois political tasks.

Under capitalism? Certainly they cannot. Yet the proletariat is the only class which is actually capable of solving the problems such as racism, nationalism and so forth, some of the things which you regard as "bourgeois political tasks", but it can solve those problems only under a new mode of production.


It is a common feature of history that rising classes advocate the ideals of the predecessor ruling class

Well... No, it is not actually. I don't know about many capitalists saying that "the tasks of the feudal ruling class should be fulfilled first"! As I said before, the very reason why a new mode of production is necessary is that the old system is not capable of fulfilling those "tasks", that the old relations of production are a growing fetter on the productive forces.


What is it in the nature of the working class that would prevent it participating in a political action which led to the establishment of equality before the law, representative democracy, freedom of speech, resolution of the land question.

It was in the past, when capitalism was still ascendant, when the establishment of communist relations of production worldwide was not an actual possibility as even capitalism was not dominant in the whole world and most importantly, when those things actually had a meaning, when reforms were actually possible, when there wasn't an epoch called imperialism, when all bourgeois states weren't taking a big part in the system in order to aid the system, then yes. Now, in decadent capitalism? No.


Surely history shows us innumerable examples of the working class taking a leading role in the fight for these bourgeois political goals ? Feb 1917 did happen. Leo's theory seems to deny that it can happen.

February 1917 revolution happened for "peace and bread" not for representative democracy, freedom of speech, equality before law etc. In other words it happened because of class demands. Now, the position of Stalin and Kamanev was that with the February Revolution, as the the new government had established the tasks such as representative democracy, freedom of speech, equality before law and so forth, the Kerensky regime was "progressive" and should have been supported by the working class, especially in the war effort. Under the ascendant period of capitalism, all those positions could have been right. After all, in 1850ies, Marx did support a German invasion of Russia as he considered Russia to be a bastion of reaction. What was established during the February Revolution, however, wasn't meaningful. Kerensky and his friends weren't more friendly to the workers' than the Czar himself. What made the October Revolution possible was not the fact that Kerensky was more progressive and it was not the fact that "bourgeois-democratic" tasks had been achieved. As you know, Bolsheviks were indeed not succesful at the ballot box. The main factor, demonstrating the crux of the issue, was that nothing had changed for the working-class: the war was still going on, workers' were still living in horrible conditions, workers were still exploited - the very issue showed the workers that the bourgeois democratic tasks were not meaningful at all! Also, what tactically helped the revolution was that the new government was really weak and that the Russian bourgeoisie was really weak, divided and worn-out following all the massive struggles of 1905 and February.


I understand that Leo's position can lead to the view (which I would charaterise - no surprise here - as sectarian) that the working class should stick to its programme of workers revolutioon and not participate in bourgeois struggles.

As I explained before, when it was possible for the bourgeoisie to actually change something , when reforms were possible, to sum up when capitalism was in it's period of ascendancy, this was possible. As Marx noted, world-wide communist revolution was not a possibility in capitalism's period of ascendancy. When the conquest of the globe by capitalism was completed, when capitalism became decadent, when the old relations of production became a growing fetter on the productive forces and when the epoch of imperialism and communist revolutions begun, this was not possible anymore, primarily due to imperialism. You see, imperialism is an epoch tying the bourgeoisie of the whole world together. This means that no bourgeois faction, big or small, left-wing or right-wing, radical or moderate can escape being a part of world imperialism, and thus the support for any struggle of any bourgeois faction is support for world imperialism.

I think you see "workers' revolution" as something completely abstract, something which happened once, maybe twice in history, something that is not realistic, something impossible and so forth. I see it, the specter of proletarian revolution, the specter of communism as a material possibility in every proletarian struggle. It is something which is very real; you just have to look for it in places other than the bourgeois media. In decadent capitalism, the epoch of world imperialism and communist revolutions, the choice is between socialism and barbarism as Rosa Luxemburg said near the beginning of the century.


It can also lead to the view that communists must first wait for the bourgeoisie to complete there tasks.

This is very close to what Trotsky is advocating.

He is saying that communists should first wait for the proletariat to complete the tasks of the bourgeoisie under capitalism.

The bourgeoisie is not capable of doing this and this means that what is called tasks of the bourgeoisie can not be realized under any form of capitalism, including an imaginary form of capitalism which is ran by the proletariat.

Hammer;


This solution can only consist in the practical recognition of the social nature of the modern forces of production, and therefore in the harmonizing with the socialized character of the means of production. And this can only come about by society openly and directly taking possession of the productive forces which have outgrown all control, except that of society as a whole. The social character of the means of production and of the products today reacts against the producers, periodically disrupts all production and exchange, acts only like a law of Nature working blindly, forcibly, destructively. But, with the taking over by society of the productive forces, the social character of the means of production and of the products will be utilized by the producers with a perfect understanding of its nature, and instead of being a source of disturbance and periodical collapse, will become the most powerful lever of production itself.

That is an excellent quote by Engels.


And this is where my "tricameral" stuff comes in, right?

Yes. [Although perhaps thinking a better name would be a good idea?]


there are plenty of bourgeois tasks unaccomplished:

1) Separation of mosque and state (as differentiated from the more radical task of separating school/madrassa from mosque altogether, a sore point for the Wahabbi jihadists)
2) FORMAL equality before the law (because, as we know, American celebrities are held in higher regard before the law than the average American, "whites" before minorities, etc.)
3) Representative democracy
4) Freedom of speech, etc.

This is an important point to address, I think. First of all, look at it this way: 1) Legal separation of separation of mosque/church and state is not really an issue because of the ossified place took by religion and religious institutions, so in reality the mosque/church has influence in the state and the state has influence in the mosque/church and thus they are not separated at all. Look at American politics and the role played by the Christian Right. Look at all the Christian Democratic parties in Europe. 2) Formal equality before the law is as you say not real and doesn't change anything for the proletarian. Racism is still strong in many different parts of the world, it is ossified, it has became a part of the bourgeois ideology, a part of capitalism. It is obvious that the only place where racism can start to be destroyed is the picket line. 3) Representative democracy obviously doesn't change anything in the life of a proletarian as no matter which bourgeois politician wins, the result doesn't change the worker in a better way. 4) Freedom of speech under capitalism is the freedom of speech for the bourgeoisie so it doesn't change anything for the proletarian. Also, when necessary, the "democracies" can do all they could to destroy communist press and such.

Now, I am sure that there is a bourgeois faction in Saudi Arabia which are trying to fight for secularism, bourgeois equality, democracy, freedom of speech etc. but I don't really think that it is something which anyone in this forum would like to support. Why? Because obviously, this bourgeois faction is a part of a bigger imperialist power. The key is that all those formerly progressive and now empty tasks have became mere meaningless slogans for different factions of the bourgeoisie.

And as for the real solutions to those problems, which the bourgeoisie is not capable of doing anything about, real separation of mosque/church and state will take place when mosques/churches and bourgeois states are abolished. Real equality in knowing that everyone has an equal value as a human being and real destructions of racism can only develop as a product of proletarian solidarity, united class struggle and eventually world communist revolution. As for representative democracy, if we take what it is formally supposed to do as a definition, giving political power to the "people", the proletariat will have real political power only when it seizes it from the bourgeoisie. Lastly, the proletariat will be able to freely express itself, only when it has power.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+June 16, 2007 11:22 pm--> (Leo Uilleann @ June 16, 2007 11:22 pm) Well... No, it is not actually. I don't know about many capitalists saying that "the tasks of the feudal ruling class should be fulfilled first!" As I said before, the very reason why a new mode of production is necessary is that the old system is not capable of fulfilling those "tasks", that the old relations of production are a growing fetter on the productive forces. [/b]
I see there is merit to what you've said in regards to this historical parallel, but what about the relationship between the "slave mode of production," the "feudal mode of production," and the "Asiatic mode of production" (which is much more widespread in TODAY's world than even Marx thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_mode_of_production)).



And this is where my "tricameral" stuff comes in, right?

Yes. [Although perhaps thinking a better name would be a good idea?]

The problem is that I can't cough it up. Here's what syndicat said in my "Soviet" thread (History forum):


syndicat
I think a dual structure of residential or community organizations and of workplace organizations is needed, because workers aren't just people who work, but are people who live in a community, have concerns in many areas, such as education, health care, child care, housing and so on. And there are those not working as well. Some sort of negotiation would need to take place between workers and the communities and people they serve, as far as coordinating the economy is concerned. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65207&view=findpost&p=1292325474)




Now, I am sure that there is a bourgeois faction in Saudi Arabia which are trying to fight for secularism, bourgeois equality, democracy, freedom of speech etc. but I don't really think that it is something which anyone in this forum would like to support. Why? Because obviously, this bourgeois faction is a part of a bigger imperialist power. The key is that all those formerly progressive and now empty tasks have became mere meaningless slogans for different factions of the bourgeoisie.

Which imperialist power?


And as for the real solutions to those problems, which the bourgeoisie is not capable of doing anything about, real separation of mosque/church and state will take place when mosques/churches and bourgeois states are abolished. Real equality in knowing that everyone has an equal value as a human being and real destructions of racism can only develop as a product of proletarian solidarity, united class struggle and eventually world communist revolution. As for representative democracy, if we take what it is formally supposed to do as a definition, giving political power to the "people", the proletariat will have real political power only when it seizes it from the bourgeoisie. Lastly, the proletariat will be able to freely express itself, only when it has power.

So, I'd like to tie what you said above to what you said below. If Lenin was indeed mistaken, what "truths" did he recognize? This also ties in to my comments about the "Asiatic mode of production" in today's world.


I remember that he came to a general agreement with Trotsky in 1917 (hence, the famous line: Lenin became a Trotskyist) however he still had serious disagreements. I think that both of them held a mistaken line, however Lenin's line at least recognizes some truths where Trotsky's theory is completely out of line.

???

[Leo]

I see there is merit to what you've said in regards to this historical parallel, but what about the relationship between the "slave mode of production," the "feudal mode of production," and the "Asiatic mode of production"

Well, the relation between the slave mode of production and the feudal mode of production" is very clear, I think. The feudal ruling class was absolutely not capable of fulfilling the tasks of old rulers of ancient empires. The feudal ruling class could not have ruled the slave mode of production, as when it organized itself as a ruling class, it established the feudal mode of production. As for Asiatic mode of production, that is a little complicated. Asiatic mode of production was a variation of feudalism. When feudalism ascendant, the Asiatic mode of feudal production was superior to the European mode of feudal production. Especially scientifically, it enabled much more development because of the political formation it created. However as feudalism became decadent, the old backwardness of the European mode of feudal production worked in favor of the merchants and traders who were to form the bourgeoisie.


(which is much more widespread in TODAY's world than even Marx thought).

Today? Wikipedia says "according to the current Marxist research, however, the Asiatic mode of production can be found all around the world, not just in Asia as the term indicates" but I don't think that has to do with today's world. There are indeed remnants of the old feudal class in different parts of the world, but they are integrated in the bourgeoisie and they function as the bourgeoisie. The mode of production in all parts of the world is capitalist. As for the comment in regards to the past regarding Asiatic mode of production being in other places than asia, well it is probably possible but I would guess that when you take Asia and Europe, there aren't many places left that can be called feudal as in Americas there were primitive communal societies and slave empires, in Africa, I would say that European-like feudal mode of production was present but Asiatic mode of feudal production was far more dominant compared to it and tribal mode of production was far more dominant compared to the Asiatic mode of feudal production. Australia mostly had tribal mode of production, although there might be influence of the Asian countries in some islands nearby.


The problem is that I can't cough it up. Here's what syndicat said in my "Soviet" thread (History forum):


I think a dual structure of residential or community organizations and of workplace organizations is needed, because workers aren't just people who work, but are people who live in a community, have concerns in many areas, such as education, health care, child care, housing and so on. And there are those not working as well. Some sort of negotiation would need to take place between workers and the communities and people they serve, as far as coordinating the economy is concerned.

Yeah, I think syndicat is a "Pareconist" so he is calling for both workers' councils and "consumers' councils". I think that communes ran by workers' councils will work out just fine. The very reason for this is that workers' should organize education, health care, child care, housing and so on themselves as workers, using their own organs.


Which imperialist power?

Depends on the situation: every small power needs bigger allies, but there are lots of potential bigger allies and there aren't poles so alliances change a lot those days.


So, I'd like to tie what you said above to what you said below. If Lenin was indeed mistaken, what "truths" did he recognize?

He had recognized that the state had was not even a workers' state. Indeed he had recognized that a "workers' state is an abstraction" (The Party Crisis, Pravda, January 21, 1921).


I remember that he came to a general agreement with Trotsky in 1917 (hence, the famous line: Lenin became a Trotskyist) however he still had serious disagreements. I think that both of them held a mistaken line, however Lenin's line at least recognizes some truths where Trotsky's theory is completely out of line.

You see, Trotsky thought that under an imaginary form of capitalism run by the proletariat, bourgeois "tasks" could be accomplished. Lenin thought that under a capitalism run by the small peasants and workers, bourgeois "tasks" could be accomplished. Both were, of course, wrong however Trotsky's position clearly made very little sense compared to Lenin's!

In the post-1924 debates, Trotsky had an economical program of super-industrialization and a political program of international revolution. Bukharin had an economical program of moderate industrialization under the NEP and a political program of socialism in one country. Stalin and the Russian bourgeoisie ended up taking the economical program of super-industrialization from Trotsky and the political program of socialism in one country from Bukharin and it proved to be the perfect choice for the Russian bourgeoisie. Had Lenin been alive, he would have an economical program close to Bukharin's, advocating for moderate industrialization and a political program advocating international revolution similar to Trotsky's. Indeed, this was the position he had after 1921. Was NEP a mistake? Yes, it was in the way it was formulated and applied to the situation and in the way that it wasn't getting down to the cause of the problems. However an economical policy which gives you a rural petty-bourgeoisie is certainly not worse than an economical policy which gives you an urban bureaucratic bourgeoisie.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 16, 2007 11:22 pm
[b] Representative democracy obviously doesn't change anything in the life of a proletarian as no matter which bourgeois politician wins, the result doesn't change the worker in a better way.
Leo your posts are very long and raise a lot of issues and it would be necessary to write at equal if not greater length to deal with them. I try to avoid over-long posts, so I will try to concentrate on the key points concerning Trotsky's theory rather than dealing with the wider points. In particular I leave aside the vast historical evidence of classes taking up the tasks of other classes.

I also leave aside the 'super-industrialization charge, except to say this: I referred you to Trotsky's 1923 Theses on Industry which actually contains arguments similar to your argument that the economic policy should concentrate on defence of the revolution. I recognise that there is very little on the Net from Trotsky in the period in which he lays out his economic policy (and very little available in English in any case) I recognise also that the Joint Platform of the Opposition placed an emphasis on industrial development - but in the face of a draft First Five Year Plan which planned no industrial development. The fact is that Trotsky's position was not that of Preobrazhensky and the claim that Stalin took over his policy is a glib academic slur. You should look further into this. [It annoying me that I have a 1926 article by Trotsky somewhere which sets out his approach, but I just cant find it to give you the reference.] Trotsky's support for industrialization was not designed to build socialism in one country but to defend the power of the working class and progressively to begin to embed some improvement in the strength of the class. You counterpose building socialism to defending the revolution as two mutually exclusive alternatives. Trotsky's policy involved building some improvements, some steps towards socialism as a way of defending the revolution - thus adopting a position that you effectively hide away by conceptual counterposition of two black/white alternatives. In summary Trotsky's position was to recognise that socialism could not be built in one country and then to argue that there was a certain potential for economic development which could be done if careful attention was paid as he put it to the 'dynamic equilibrium' of the sectors. In effect, his argument was that you could have economic development that strengthened the revolution and the proletariat, that this would involve significant industrial development, particularly of light industry but that it would need to be done with great care if the operation of the economy and the political power of the class was not to be undermined.

The key point in your view, as I see it, is that you

a) discount, as in the above quote, the value to the working class of the achievement of bourgeois democratic tasks

b) discount the value of events such as March 1917 of which you say "What was established during the February Revolution, however, wasn't meaningful........ nothing had changed for the working-class"

c) Suggest that Trotsky believed that "communists should first wait for the proletariat to complete the tasks of the bourgeoisie under capitalism"

On a) this is just a fact about what I would characterise as sectarian or ultra left positions. In an era where the link between building trade unions and mass political parties and building the revolution is far from obvious I understand why people adopt that view, but I retain the view that bourgeois democratic rights (if achieved in any society) are of great benefit to workers and communists in giving them the space to organise more openly and speak out. Any improvement of equality before the law is of great benefit to workers seeking their rights. Any separation of the church and state that can be achieved creates real practical benefits for young people and women, in particular.

On b), what can I say ? A vicious dictator (the Czar) is dethroned and you think this 'wasnt meaningful' ????

c) It is entirely wrong to say that Trotsky wanted the bourgeois tasks completed UNDER CAPITALISM. Thus in the Transitional Programme he writes : "The slogan 'workers and farmers' government is acceptable to us only in the sense that it had in 1917 with the Bolsheviks i.e. as an anti-bourgeois and anti-capitalist slogan, but in no cae in that 'democratic' sense which later the epigones gave it, transforming it from a bridge to socialist revolution into the chief barrier upon its path" And he goes on elsewhere in the same document: "It is impossible merely to reject the democratic programme; it is imperative that in the struggle the masses outgrow it. ....On the basis of the revolutionary democratic programme [where it is still relevant -GH (summarising Trotsky's earlier qualifications)] it is necessary to oppose the workers to the 'national' bourgeoisie. Then at a certain stage in the mobilization of the masses under the slogans of revolutionary democracy, soviets can and should arise. Sooner or later, the soviets should overthrow bourgeois democracy. Only they are capable of bringing the democratic revolution to a conclusion and likewise opeing an era of socialist revolution. The relative weight of the individual democratic and transitional demands in the proletariats struggle, their mutual ties and their order of presentation is determined by the peculiarities and specific conditions of each backward country and to a considerable extent by the degree of its backwardness. Nevertheless, the general trend of revolutionary development in allbackward countries can be determined by the formula of the permanent revolution...."

On which formula, see the quote in my earlier post from Trotsky. It is clear from all this that Trotsky neither said 1) it is possible to build socialism in one country by industrialization, nor 2) that the bourgeoisie must complete the democratic tasks, nor 3) that the democratic tasks must be completed under capitalism. Such judgements of the Theory of Permanent Revolution would be unjustified.

[Leo]

Leo your posts are very long and raise a lot of issues and it would be necessary to write at equal if not greater length to deal with them.

Well, that's what I'm trying to get people to do.


In particular I leave aside the vast historical evidence of classes taking up the tasks of other classes.

Don't leave anything aside, if you have evidence, then show it to me. Yet I think that the very concept of "tasks" of different classes is simply subjective and abstract to begin with.


I also leave aside the 'super-industrialization charge, except to say this: I referred you to Trotsky's 1923 Theses on Industry which actually contains arguments similar to your argument that the economic policy should concentrate on defence of the revolution.

Well no it doesn't. Trotsky just has ideas about specialization and mastering of science and technical subjects are revolutionary duties now. There isn't much other mention of revolution or similar subjects.

In this text, Trotsky says:


The mutual relations which exist in our country between the working class and the peasantry rest in the last analysis on the mutual relations between industry and agriculture. In the last resort the working class can retain and strengthen its role as leader not through the State apparatus or the army, but by means of the industry which gives rise to the proletariat...Only the development of industry creates the unshakable basis for the dictatorship of the proletariat ... Only in proportion as industry makes real progress and as the heavy industries – which form the only firm basis of the proletarian dictatorship – are restored, and in proportion as the work of electrification is completed will it become both possible and, indeed, inevitable to alter the relative significance in our economic life of agriculture and industry and to shift the centre of gravity from the former to the latter.

(Emphasis mine.) It is obviously advocating that industrialization is going to make the working class dominant over the bourgeoisie, the conclusion is obviously saying that the more industrialization, the better. Also, Trotsky is complaining about the New Economic Policy:


[H]eavy industry has barely come into contact with the market. It depends essentially upon State orders, and needs for its restoration that the State should make large and well-thought-out investments in it. This also applies to a considerable extent to railway and water transport.

Thus, as a result of the total economic conditions, a healthy regulation of prices in light industries remains as yet unattained: This, and the backwardness of heavy industry in comparison with light industry, represents the chief items of the debit side of the first period of the new economic policy.

As we have seen, Trotsky's arguments are creating the basis of the future rejection of NEP in favor of heavy industry.


I recognise also that the Joint Platform of the Opposition placed an emphasis on industrial development - but in the face of a draft First Five Year Plan which planned no industrial development. The fact is that Trotsky's position was not that of Preobrazhensky

What? Of course it is. They obviously agreed on the question, Preobrazhensky had been a supporter of Trotsky since the trade-union debate, they were in the same faction, they acted together and the only reason it was Preobrazhensky who outlined the ideas about industrialization was that he was the most qualified and respected economist of the Left Opposition. In fact, it is very well known that the opposition to the New Economical Policy was one of the defining characteristics of the Left Opposition.


and the claim that Stalin took over his policy is a glib academic slur.

No, it is not and I'm afraid the fact that it offends Trotskyists is not enough to make it a mere academic slur. The first five year plan built up Russia's heavy industry, proletarianized the agriculture, destroyed the kulaks and so forth. Now the "centre of gravity" in the "economic life" of Russia had "shifted" from agriculture to industry. This is a fact. This was what the Left Opposition advocated and this was what Stalin did.


Trotsky's support for industrialization was not designed to build socialism in one country

Obviously, however what I am saying is that his and the Left Opposition's economical policies would have worked much better with the idea of "socialism" in one country and with actually what the bureaucratic bourgeoisie in Russia were doing.


You counterpose building socialism to defending the revolution as two mutually exclusive alternatives.

Well, you can't even begin to build socialism in one country and after the world revolution, there wouldn't be much to defend the revolution from so yes, logically they are mutually exclusive, one is the premise of the other.


In an era where the link between building trade unions and mass political parties

Revolutionary unions and revolutionary mass parties are not possible during the decadence of capitalism. They have to be attached to the bourgeoisie and to the state in order to actually function.


I understand why people adopt that view

I don't think you do. I am talking about a theoretical and historical phenomenon about the decadence of capitalism and you are tying this to my "feelings", perhaps my alleged "sectarianism" and so forth. No, I don't think you understand it at all because you are not trying to understand - you are ignoring the theoretical basis of the political positions put forward and you are saying that you don't agree with the political positions I defend.


but I retain the view that bourgeois democratic rights (if achieved in any society) are of great benefit to workers and communists in giving them the space to organise more openly and speak out. Any improvement of equality before the law is of great benefit to workers seeking their rights. Any separation of the church and state that can be achieved creates real practical benefits for young people and women, in particular.

You don't have any actual theoretical base for the support you give out to those arguements. You say that bourgeois democratic rights are great but you ignore the fact that they will prevent workers from organizing whenever they need no matter how democratic they are. You say that any improvement of equality before the law is great but you ignore the fact that what the law says doesn't change those who think that some are superior to others. You say that any separation of church and state is beneficial but you ignore that this separation is not actually possible at all. All those are mere slogans of some bourgeois factions, all tied to imperialism.


discount the value of events such as March 1917 of which you say "What was established during the February Revolution, however, wasn't meaningful........ nothing had changed for the working-class"

what can I say ? A vicious dictator (the Czar) is dethroned and you think this 'wasnt meaningful' ????

You ignore this: February 1917 revolution happened for "peace and bread". Those were the tasks the proletariat had set up for itself. It achieved neither after the revolution, Kerensky and his friends weren't more friendly to the workers' than the Czar himself and the "democratic" changes contributed nothing to the working class. However, as I said, the February Revolution did achieve something very important: it achieved a situation in which the bourgeoisie was seriously weakened, to a point where they were no longer able to control the proletariat. This made the October Revolution possible. This was the achievement of the February Revolution: not "democratic" changes but a situation which weakened the bourgeoisie making it possible for the working class to seize power. This is a far more important and meaningful accomplishment than any bourgeois democratic task.


It is entirely wrong to say that Trotsky wanted the bourgeois tasks completed UNDER CAPITALISM.

No it is not wrong, it is true. Trotsky might not have had the guts to say that it was capitalism, although Lenin did. This also has to do with their different positions in the trade union debate as well.

Think of it this way: Trotsky is saying that installing the socialist mode of production in one country is not possible. Trotsky is saying that the proletariat who has taken power in one country is capable of accomplishing what he calls bourgeois tasks. As the mode of production in that country is not socialist but capitalist and as the mode of production can't be changed from capitalism to socialism in one country, then Trotsky thinks that the proletariat can complete the tasks of the bourgeoisie under a form of capitalism which they run. I seriously don't know if I can make this argument simpler.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, it is not and I'm afraid the fact that it offends Trotskyists is not enough to make it a mere academic slur.

I don't think gilhyle is a Trotskyist, though. He said above that Trotsky's PR is "not for that reason wrong" in regards to some reason, and said that Lenin's RDOTP&P "still has some merit."


The first five year plan built up Russia's heavy industry, proletarianized the agriculture, destroyed the kulaks and so forth.

NO, IT DID NOT!!! :angry: :(

I REFER YOU ONCE MORE TO MY KAUTSKY THREAD AND ON STALIN'S PREFERENCE FOR COLLECTIVE FARMING (BUT WITH A TWIST OF SERFDOM) OVER STATE FARMING!


Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 17, 2007 11:02 am
The feudal ruling class was absolutely not capable of fulfilling the tasks of old rulers of ancient empires. The feudal ruling class could not have ruled the slave mode of production, as when it organized itself as a ruling class, it established the feudal mode of production. As for Asiatic mode of production, that is a little complicated. Asiatic mode of production was a variation of feudalism. When feudalism ascendant, the Asiatic mode of feudal production was superior to the European mode of feudal production. Especially scientifically, it enabled much more development because of the political formation it created.
Thanks for clarifying on this one. That would explain why DAR-AL-ISLAM was scientifically superior to the "Dar-al-Harb" of Christendom for so many centuries, and would explain why the territorial reach of the Roman Empire was achieved only by them and by the Mongols.



So, I'd like to tie what you said above to what you said below. If Lenin was indeed mistaken, what "truths" did he recognize?

He had recognized that the state [he] had was not even a workers' state. Indeed he had recognized that a "workers' state is an abstraction" (The Party Crisis, Pravda, January 21, 1921).


I remember that he came to a general agreement with Trotsky in 1917 (hence, the famous line: Lenin became a Trotskyist) however he still had serious disagreements. I think that both of them held a mistaken line, however Lenin's line at least recognizes some truths where Trotsky's theory is completely out of line.

You see, Trotsky thought that under an imaginary form of capitalism run by the proletariat, bourgeois "tasks" could be accomplished. Lenin thought that under a capitalism run by the small peasants and workers, bourgeois "tasks" could be accomplished. Both were, of course, wrong however Trotsky's position clearly made very little sense compared to Lenin's!

And this has primarily to do with ascendant capitalism, right? The idea that, even under ascendant capitalism, the bourgeoisie couldn't defend its own gains (see Napoleon, his monarchist enemies, and the capitulation of the French bourgeoisie)?


In the post-1924 debates, Trotsky had an economical program of super-industrialization and a political program of international revolution. Bukharin had an economical program of moderate industrialization under the NEP and a political program of socialism in one country. Stalin and the Russian bourgeoisie ended up taking the economical program of super-industrialization from Trotsky and the political program of socialism in one country from Bukharin and it proved to be the perfect choice for the Russian bourgeoisie. Had Lenin been alive, he would have an economical program close to Bukharin's, advocating for moderate industrialization and a political program advocating international revolution similar to Trotsky's. Indeed, this was the position he had after 1921. Was NEP a mistake? Yes, it was in the way it was formulated and applied to the situation and in the way that it wasn't getting down to the cause of the problems. However an economical policy which gives you a rural petty-bourgeoisie is certainly not worse than an economical policy which gives you an urban bureaucratic bourgeoisie.

And here I was hoping for a "triple threat match" until you mentioned Bukharin! :lol: ;)


You don't have any actual theoretical base for the support you give out to those arguements. You say that bourgeois democratic rights are great but you ignore the fact that they will prevent workers from organizing whenever they need no matter how democratic they are. You say that any improvement of equality before the law is great but you ignore the fact that what the law says doesn't change those who think that some are superior to others. You say that any separation of church and state is beneficial but you ignore that this separation is not actually possible at all. All those are mere slogans of some bourgeois factions, all tied to imperialism.

Those slogans certainly are, now. :(

gilhyle, keep in mind that Lenin said this:

"They themselves share, and instill into the minds of the people, the false notion that universal suffrage 'in the present-day state' is really capable of revealing the will of the majority of the working people and of securing its realization."



Leo, while I do agree with your basic premise regarding ascendant and decadent capitalism and the role of revolutionary-democratic tasks within the former, I still must disagree with you in regards to the "worldwide" extent of decadent capitalism's reach. :blush:

And the reasons why?

1) France, and what I said earlier: "The idea that, even under ascendant capitalism, the bourgeoisie couldn't defend its own gains (see Napoleon, his monarchist enemies, and the capitulation of the French bourgeoisie)?"

2) I think you're forgetting the rate of capital accumulation and uneven development worldwide (at least Trotsky saw this confirmation of Marx's stuff on uneven development). Here's what I said in a dead thread which nobody bothered to respond to:


So, just a question on the idea that certain economies accumulate more capital and develop faster than others:

Because that's the case, isn't there a problem in regards to a global socialist revolution? Not every country will have the material conditions for said revolution, let alone the two transitional periods (DOTP and "socialism").

For example, let's contrast Germany with much of Eastern Europe. Suppose that certain conditions have led to socialist revolutions in Western Europe and in other developed and near-developed countries worldwide. Now, what of Eastern Europe, which wouldn't be ready for the transitional periods with the high number of agricultural workers relative to the overall workforce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Poland#Agriculture) (link on Poland)?

On the economic front, are revolutionary-democratic tasks still viable for those countries even while bordering countries that have undergone proper socialist revolutions? What will the economic relationship between the DOTPs and the revolutionary-democratic states be like?

On the political front, can the new DOTPs "peacefully coexist" with the revolutionary-democratic states (to borrow Khrushchev's phraseology)?

[Leo]

I don't think gilhyle is a Trotskyist, though. He said above that Trotsky's PR is "not for that reason wrong" in regards to some reason, and said that Lenin's RDOTP&P "still has some merit."

Well, he'll clear it himself when he posts. But the official Troskyist position is to say that Trotsky was wrong and Lenin was right in every disagreement they had, and then there is the dissident Trotskyists who say that Trotsky was right and Lenin was wrong in every disagreement they had, and the rest is in between.


NO, IT DID NOT!!!

I REFER YOU ONCE MORE TO MY KAUTSKY THREAD AND ON STALIN'S PREFERENCE FOR COLLECTIVE FARMING (BUT WITH A TWIST OF SERFDOM) OVER STATE FARMING!

Yeah, I did check the thread - I think you are referring to the difference between Kolkhoz and Sovkhoz. I don't think that they worked fundamentally different in terms of proletarianization; a member of a Kolkhoz, was paid a share of the farm’s product and profit from what was sold to the state according to the number of workdays as for Sovkhoz workers, they were paid regulated wages. In both cases, it was more or less wage-labor and more importantly capitalist relations existed in both kinds of farms. Now, why were there two different kind of farms then? Because of the situation in Russia. Sovkhoz farms were created by the state confiscating large estates and Kolkhoz farms were mostly created by combining smaller individual farms together. In that sense, Kolkhoz farms specifically dealt with the past and Sovkhoz farms were the plan for the future. By the time Soviet Union collapsed, there were 25.000 farms of which 45% were Sovkhoz and 55% were Kolkhoz, however Sovkhoz farms were more than twice the size of Kolkhoz farms.


And this has primarily to do with ascendant capitalism, right? The idea that, even under ascendant capitalism, the bourgeoisie couldn't defend its own gains (see Napoleon, his monarchist enemies, and the capitulation of the French bourgeoisie)?

Well, it has more to do with how Lenin and Trotsky misunderstood the decadence of capitalism. They both saw that the bourgeoisie was not capable of achieving their tasks in decadence, Trotsky's solution was completely baseless, wishful and idealistic, Lenin's solution looked up to the model of how the bourgeoisie solved problems of defending gains in the ascendancy period (by getting the support of the lower classes) and thought that as the bourgeoisie is completely incapable as opposed to incapable is some aspects, he took the bourgeoisie out of the equation and defended that the lower classes who were allied with the progressive bourgeoisie for defending bourgeois gains in the ascendancy will now have to carry out those bourgeois "gains" by themselves. Both were wrong of course, but Lenin's mistake was a much more sophisticated one compared to Trotsky's.


1) France, and what I said earlier: "The idea that, even under ascendant capitalism, the bourgeoisie couldn't defend its own gains (see Napoleon, his monarchist enemies, and the capitulation of the French bourgeoisie)?"

Well, obviously the ancient regime was not going to let everything go without a struggle. Nevertheless, in the end it was the bourgeoisie who ended up victorious and even the old monarchs ended up wearing velvet gloves to cover their iron fists. As for the protecting the gains, now capitalism was developing tremendously in the 19th century, yet it was also becoming obvious that it's tremendous ascendancy was going to come to an end: the footsteps of decadence could be heard in this period. When it was still ascendant, capitalism nevertheless managed to find out brilliant ways to keep up (the importance of Napoleon the Third).


2) I think you're forgetting the rate of capital accumulation and uneven development worldwide

But of course they are uneven, they had never been even. However, what I am saying is that while analyzing, we have to analyze the world as a whole because the current conditions require us to do so: we can not analyze the European economy for example without looking at the economy of the rest of the world because the European economy was built on colonial expansions. We can not analyze Cuba without analyzing the Soviet Union, we can not analyze Saudi Arabia without analyzing United States. Imperialism ties the entire world together, and this is precisely what shows the the worldwide extent of decadent capitalism.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 16, 2007 08:20 am
You are talking about a "socialist" state with a capitalist economy. You are trying to justify the USSR by saying that "any other socialist state" would act the same way. You are completely in line with "socialism in one country".
Why do you have such a basic understanding of Marxism and then turn the issue around to make it seem that I am a Stalinist?

You and DJ-TC are both lost, aren't you?

Look, read this and grasp it: "But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."

Bourgeois law in distrubtion remains to exist in a nation after a socialist revolution for that very reason. With bourgeois law in distrubtion comes money, wages, pensions, extraction of surplus value etc.

By "extraction of surplus value" what do we mean? It is a very different in a socialist economy than in a capitalist economy of course. In the former what defines the surplus value? The capitalist does, based on profits extracted from the commodity the worker produces. But how can this be defined in a socialist economy, in which the prices of the commodity are determined not by the socially required labor power to produce it, but by the planning machinery of the state?

Yeah, and there's where your "theory" falls apart. The USSR was not capitalist, and to suggest it was is ridiculous in all respects. A capitalist economy suffers from completely different problems than the economy of the USSR did, and vice versa.

Only an intellectualy lazy person would ascribe the title "capitalist" to Stalinist states, because theoretically it has no ground to stand on.

Anyway, the point is that bourgeois laws of distrubution (and everything that comes with that) will remain to exist in a nation after the revolution, because law can never be higher than the economic structure of society.



That's exactly why you can't have socialism in a single "nation".

Yes, exactly, and I never said you could.


Probably not, it just would not have became the major imperialist power it was.

Erm, not really, it would've stayed a shithole, and probably have lost the war against Germany so you'd be taking German as the second language in your school, if you weren't killed that is.


First of all, you are arguing again that socialism in one country is possible.

No I'm not, the problem with this is purely semantical.

When I used socialist there I meant socialist as in building socialism, not already socialist. Of course socialism cannot be built in a single nation, that's impossible economically.


Secondly, all you seem to be arguing for in the bottom line is to merge the elections in the West and state ownership in the USSR.

If by "state ownership in the USSR" you mean abolition of private property, and by "elections in the west" you mean expropriation of the capitalist class, then yes.


Thirdly, you are coming down to saying that famous "the crisis of humanity is the crisis of leadership" line. This is a very bad direction to take. It can lead to saying that the capitalist system is not bad, the problem is the individuals who run it, the problem is who the bourgeoisie is.

What a ridiculous thing to say; capitalism is made up of individuals, what are you saying, that it's some kind of supernatural machine?

That doesn't mean one has to believe that those invidiuals belonging to the ruling class can "change their minds". Their material existence already prevents that, that's how a Marxist analyzes it.


Lastly it is not true and it is a completely idealist understanding: it is not a question of whether the bourgeois-bureaucrats are elected or not, it is a question of who has power, who rules directly, it is a question of "which class".

Right, nice job simplifying things, just sucks that you totally muddied the issue while doing it.

The people who got elected in the Soviet Congresses from 1923 onward were results of the class supporting them and their consciousness at the time. The drive towards Stalinism was based on that. For example the failure of the German and Chinese revolutions caused a boost to Stalin's "socialism in one country" crap, since it translated in the working class turning to that.

However, the fact remains that Trotsky was a person who supported internationalism and Stalin was a person who supported socialism in one country. If Trotsky had won over Stalin, things would've been different.

He didn't due to reasons I just cited, which are based on objective material conditions, still, the people had different ideas and were different. Minimizing the role of the individual in such a thing is pointless and mechanical.


Other capitalist states too had experienced lots of economic problems. However, the collapse of the Stalinist ideology was the expression of the collapse of the Russian imperialist pole, not the Russian capitalist economy, not even Russian imperialism by itself.


You totally missed my point. I was being sarcastic. I meant during the Great Depression when the US and all other capitalist states were going through a major depression the USSR was left entirely unaffacted, and grew by about 15/20% a year in terms of economic growth.

[Leo]

You and DJ-TC are both lost, aren't you?

Look, read this and grasp it: "But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."

So? This has got nothing to do with what I am saying. Again, you are saying that it was "normal" for the "socialist" state in Russia to have some capitalist defects. Thus you actually think that what was going in Russia was "the first phase of communist society", you are completely in line with the theory of socialism in one country.


By "extraction of surplus value" what do we mean? It is a very different in a socialist economy than in a capitalist economy of course.

Again, you accepted that having a "socialist economy" in one country is possible.


In the former what defines the surplus value? The capitalist does, based on profits extracted from the commodity the worker produces. But how can this be defined in a socialist economy, in which the prices of the commodity are determined not by the socially required labor power to produce it, but by the planning machinery of the state?

What a vulgar way of looking at the economy. What you are talking about is not as simple as you think. From the perspective of a worker, the changes brought about by the tendency to state capitalism are not to be found on the level of the basic relations of production, but only on the level of the juridical forms of property. They do not eliminate the private ownership of the means of production, but only the juridical aspect of individual ownership. The means of production remain "private" property as far as the workers are concerned; the workers are deprived of any control over the means of production.

As for the differences regarding the bourgeoisie, which seems to be the basis of your argument; true, the individual capitalist who is the boss of a specific factory doesn't "define" the surplus value according to the profits extracted from the commodity the worker produces as in the traditional 19th century approach. In so-called "socialist" countries, it is the state bureaucracy which takes on the specific function of extracting surplus labor from the proletariat and of accumulating national capital. Obviously the state bureaucracy determines the prices of the commodity accordingly to the socially required labor power to produce it. The only difference is that this decision is made more collectively, yet even this is not a real difference as it really is not an individual capitalist in "democratic" countries who determines this but it is rather the heavily bureaucratized upper management cadres of major monopolistic corporations and also the state bureaucracies as well, thus demonstrating that what is called tendency towards state capitalism is not something limited to explaining what happened in Russia but an universal tendency under decadent capitalism.


The USSR was not capitalist

It most definately was. It had the capitalist mode of production, capitalist relations of production, an obviously privileged capitalist ruling class, an exploited working class, imperialist ambitions and so forth. The only argument you've got to argue that USSR was not capitalist is to say that everything was nationalized, and then again we remember the famous quote from Engels: "The modern state, whatever its form, is an essentially capitalist machine; it is the state of the capitalists, the ideal collective body of all capitalists. The more productive forces it takes over as its property, the more it becomes the real collective body of all the capitalists, the more citizens it exploits. The workers remain wage-earners, proletarians. The capitalist relation is not abolished; it is rather pushed to an extreme."

Another famous quote from Engels: "If the taking over of the tobacco trade by the state was socialistic, Napoleon and Metternich would rank among the founders of socialism."


Only an intellectualy lazy person would ascribe the title "capitalist" to Stalinist states, because theoretically it has no ground to stand on.

It stands on historical materialism. Only an intellectually dishonest person would say that USSR was "socialist" and then claim to be a Marxist.


When I used socialist there I meant socialist as in building socialism, not already socialist.

Fine, you think that the basis for socialism can be built in one country, that the so-called "socialist" countries were building socialism etc.


If by "state ownership in the USSR" you mean abolition of private property

Of course it is only a change on the juridical forms of property.

I mean state-ownership, the state owns and the bureaucratic bourgeoisie controls the means of production.


and by "elections in the west" you mean expropriation of the capitalist class,

I mean elections, voting, "democracy" etc.


then yes.

:rolleyes:


What a ridiculous thing to say; capitalism is made up of individuals, what are you saying, that it's some kind of supernatural machine?

I'm saying that it's their class, not the quality of the individuals in question, that determine the historical actions they will take.


The people who got elected in the Soviet Congresses from 1923 onward were results of the class supporting them and their consciousness at the time. The drive towards Stalinism was based on that. For example the failure of the German and Chinese revolutions caused a boost to Stalin's "socialism in one country" crap, since it translated in the working class turning to that.

What?! You actually think that the "drive towards Stalinism" was based on the working class turning towards Stalinism? What a baseless and ridiculous thing to say - are you completely out of your mind!

The class which supported Stalin was not the working class, it was the bureaucracy - Stalin himself admits this! When, at a diner in November 1937, Dimitroff recalls to Stalin saying "Why did we win over Trotsky and others? It is well known that, after Lenin, Trotsky was the most popular in our land. But we had the support of the middle cadres, and they explained our grasp of the situation to the masses ... Trotsky did not pay any attention to these cadres" (7.11.37, Dmitroff's Diaries).


However, the fact remains that Trotsky was a person who supported internationalism and Stalin was a person who supported socialism in one country. If Trotsky had won over Stalin, things would've been different.

:rolleyes: Again, you proved yourself to be an idealist and a even a cultist. Had Trotsky won, which he could have as he had the possible advantage over Stalin at the beginning, he would either be taken down by another ambitious bureaucrat or he would have taken the role of Stalin himself. First of all, his economic program would have resulted exactly like Stalin's in creating the most massive bureaucracy history had seen. Secondly, by the time they were fighting, the bureaucratic bourgeoisie was already strong and the workers' had lost their class institutions, also Trotsky too was too was very much connected to the bureaucracy as his opposition in the Soviet Union was an official one and he had not based him on the working class against the bureaucracy.


I meant during the Great Depression when the US and all other capitalist states were going through a major depression the USSR was left entirely unaffacted, and grew by about 15/20% a year in terms of economic growth.

Well, when the capitalist states in the West were having those problems, Russian capitalism was coming back with the solution: state capitalism. In fact, you can see this tendency more or less solving the economical depression, in Roosevelt's America, Hitler's Germany etc. Also, countries like Mussolini's Italy, Kemal's Turkey did not have economic depressions either. Even Britain wasn't effected that badly. Would you argue that all those states ceased to be capitalists afterwards? Doesn't this prove my point about state-capitalism being the tendency in the 20th century?

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 16, 2007 11:22 pm
will the workers in a part of the world in which they had been victorious have an economical policy? Certainly they will. Nevertheless, it is important to note is that what determines this economic policy in this case will be the political situation, the policy will be the economical policy which was made to suit the political tasks of the proletariat in the part of the world in which they have been victorious, such as maintaining of all the proletariat's class institutions, smashing the bourgeoisie state, preventing the rise of bourgeoisie, bureaucracy and so forth, protecting the international revolutionary character of the regime, completely supporting the workers and communists in all other parts of the world...



Think of it this way: Trotsky is saying that installing the socialist mode of production in one country is not possible. Trotsky is saying that the proletariat who has taken power in one country is capable of accomplishing what he calls bourgeois tasks. As the mode of production in that country is not socialist but capitalist and as the mode of production can't be changed from capitalism to socialism in one country, then Trotsky thinks that the proletariat can complete the tasks of the bourgeoisie under a form of capitalism which they run. I seriously don't know if I can make this argument simpler.

What Trotsky believes - and my quote from the Transitional Programme illustrates this - is that as part of the seizure of the State the proletariat can complete bourgeois democratic tasks. Are you saying they cant ? Are you saying that workers can seize the State and still not be able to separate church and state etc ?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:09 pm
What Trotsky believes - and my quote from the Transitional Programme illustrates this - is that as part of the seizure of the State the proletariat can complete bourgeois democratic tasks. Are you saying they cant ? Are you saying that workers can seize the State and still not be able to separate church and state etc ?
Leo, I'm still mulling over your stuff, so gilhyle's stuff, being easier to reply to, will be responded to first. :(

Guys, I think there really needs to be a separation between the bourgeois-democratic tasks and the revolutionary-democratic tasks. Just like how historical materialism has now separated the DOTP from "socialism" (in that "communism" has at least TWO transitional periods), the two tasks aren't identical.

1) I'd like to say that the former, while identical to the latter, is differentiated by who carries out the tasks.


Nevertheless, in the end it was the bourgeoisie who ended up victorious and even the old monarchs ended up wearing velvet gloves to cover their iron fists. As for the protecting the gains, now capitalism was developing tremendously in the 19th century, yet it was also becoming obvious that it's tremendous ascendancy was going to come to an end: the footsteps of decadence could be heard in this period.

2) The process of carrying out the former (BD) is slower than carrying out the latter (RD). Leo, while the bourgeoisie did end up victorious, think of how much less misery we as a species would have been exposed to had certain tasks and modes of production triumphed over others. Consider, for the feudal instances, the culturally advanced Kievan Rus' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus'#Historical_assessment), or the Abbasid Caliphate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid#Science_under_the_Abbasids).

It took a LONG time to finish the bourgeois-democratic tasks in England, and all because the bourgeois parliamentarians capitulated to royalist pressure, turning on the one man (Cromwell) and his military group who, in hindsight, were the only ones who truly acted in the bourgeoisie's collective interests.

Here's an interesting Trotskyist article on Cromwell:

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr229/jenkins.htm

Next, it took a LONG time to finish the bourgeois-democratic tasks in France, and all because the bourgeoisie turned on their own, those who, in hindsight, were the only ones who truly acted in the bourgeoisie's collective interests (here I'm referring, of course, to the Jacobins ;) ).

Heck, for another example, just look at the Russian revolution of March. Did any bourgeois "revolutionaries" resolve the peace and land issues? :rolleyes:

[Leo]

gilhyle;


of the seizure of the State the proletariat can complete bourgeois democratic tasks.

The proletariat doesn't "seize" the existing bourgeois state - it destroys it.


Are you saying that workers can seize the State and still not be able to separate church and state etc ?

There won't be an influential church or a bourgeois state to be separated when the proletariat overthrows the bourgeoisie so certainly!

You see, what you call "bourgeois tasks" are formal issues which doesn't solve the actual problems. For the proletariat to be able to challenge the bourgeoisie, it has to actually solve those problems instead of formally making it appear as if the problem is solved.

Hammer;

I'm drunk right now so I will reply to your post later tonight - hopefully I'll sober by then.

[gilhyle]

I dont know what we are debating then. The Theory of Permanent Revolution as quoted is that the working class can complet bourgeois democratic tasks - to adapt Hammer's terminology - as revolutionary democratic tasks. You dont reject that. What are we talking about - except you superindustrialization claim which an historical point - though one Im happy to debate further.

[Leo]

gilhyle;


I dont know what we are debating then. The Theory of Permanent Revolution as quoted is that the working class can complet bourgeois democratic tasks - to adapt Hammer's terminology - as revolutionary democratic tasks. You dont reject that. except you superindustrialization claim which an historical point

No, I do reject it because I am not talking about "bourgeois-democratic tasks" - I am talking about direct obstacles the proletariat faces everyday and can only solve in the class struggle, like racism, religion, nationalism etc. the very influence of radical bourgeois ideology working against proletarian consciousness. I am talking about something necessary for the proletariat's seizure of power, if workers are hating each other because of race, nation, religion etc. then there can be no a revolution. Removing ideological obstacles in front of the proletariat has got nothing to do with being bourgeois tasks, quite the contrary those are proletarian tasks - this is the crux of the issue. Parliamentary democracy, equality before the law etc. on the other hand, are not and today they are simply slogans of different bourgeois factions that are tied to world imperialism. The proletariat can't achieve parliamentary democracy, equality according to bourgeois law etc. because it's historical task is to destroy the bourgeois political superstructure.


Im happy to debate further.

This is good, I would like to keep debating.

Hammer;


Just like how historical materialism has now separated the DOTP from "socialism"

Well, that is a far more simple issue. Dictatorship of the proletariat is when the proletariat seized power in one part of the world. Socialism is the mode of production established when the proletariat has expanded it's dictatorship to the whole world.


Leo, while the bourgeoisie did end up victorious, think of how much less misery we as a species would have been exposed to had certain tasks and modes of production triumphed over others. Consider, for the feudal instances, the culturally advanced Kievan Rus', or the Abbasid Caliphate.

Well, we'll never know that. However I wouldn't bet on the Abbasid Caliphate triumphing and creating less misery: they had, as we know from the current stance in the region, aspects which could prove to be far more reactionary. Also, in such a huge assertion, I find it safe enough to say that it didn't happen because it could not have happened for a number of material reasons.


It took a LONG time to finish the bourgeois-democratic tasks in England, and all because the bourgeois parliamentarians capitulated to royalist pressure, turning on the one man (Cromwell) and his military group who, in hindsight, were the only ones who truly acted in the bourgeoisie's collective interests.

Here's an interesting Trotskyist article on Cromwell:

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr229/jenkins.htm

Next, it took a LONG time to finish the bourgeois-democratic tasks in France, and all because the bourgeoisie turned on their own, those who, in hindsight, were the only ones who truly acted in the bourgeoisie's collective interests (here I'm referring, of course, to the Jacobins wink.gif ).

Heck, for another example, just look at the Russian revolution of March. Did any bourgeois "revolutionaries" resolve the peace and land issues?

Well, all those examples point out to the problems experienced by the bourgeoisie while establishing their rule. Obviously there were problems, more insightful factions opposed to conservative bourgeois factions etc. and this demonstrates that the crisis existed even during capitalism's ascendancy, but from the general perspective, all the progressiveness of the bourgeoisie in its ascendancy was in reality the establishment of the bourgeois socio-political superstructure. However, because of the parallels existing it class societies, it was possible to integrate the superstructures of the old mode of production to the superstructures of the new mode of production.

[gilhyle]

From what you say the key point of difference between you and the trotskyist view relates to Trotsky's point expressed as follows : "It is impossible merely to reject the democratic programme; it is imperative that in the struggle the masses outgrow it."

On the contrary - as I understand your position - your argument is that because capitalism iis n the imperialist phase, democratic tasks no longer exist as such. Rather,i the course of establishing and defending a workers state, the working class will carry out actions which will resolve the issues referred to in the concepts of democratic tasks. However, they will not - if I understand your view - resolve them as such. Thus, the democratic task of establishing representataive ddemocracy is not implemented but is surpassed by establishing soviets. Similarly the resolution of the land question is not resolved by the distribution of the land to the peasantryy but rather by the collectivization of agriculture.

I THINK this leads you to the consluion that it would be wrong to build or organise behind slogens which had a what Trotsky would call a transitional character.

Generally speaking, I assume you accept that Trotsky shares your view of the significance of the imperialist epoch, but not the implications of that.. In other words he does not believe tht democratic tasks can be achieved under the leadership of the bourgeoisie. But because of his belief in the legitimacy of adopting demands that have a transitional character, this view of the nature of imperialsim does not lead him to the same programmtic conclusion you are led to. (Technicallly for Trotsky transitional and democratic demands or different, but the difference is probably not significant here since the key issue seems to be whether a) democratic demands can have a transitional character and b) whether if they have that justifies adopting them or being willing to participate in organisation around them.

To me that is the heart of the issue between you and Permanent Revolution

[Leo]

I think it is necessary to outline the differences more clearly:

Trotsky sees democratic "tasks" as tasks which should occur in a country in order to be a "proper" capitalist country. Trotsky sees that the bourgeoisie is not capable of fulfilling those "tasks" in all countries, but doesn't see that all those tasks have became meaningless and unfulfillable. Thus he thinks that those slogans should be supported because the only the proletariat can fulfill them and fulfilling them will be the first thing the proletariat will do in a country which it takes power in. He also thinks that it is correct to support bourgeois factions who put forward or support those slogans as it makes those bourgeois factions "progressive".

My position is quite different. I say that: First of all those "tasks" have simply became slogans for different bourgeois factions and all of those factions are a part of world imperialism, so support given to any of those slogans is support given to bourgeois factions who put forward those slogans which is support given to world imperialism.

Secondly the tasks Trotsky is talking about are really a mixed bag, consisting of economical and political aspects and accordingly those aspects should be examined separately.

Those economical "tasks" of the bourgeoisie, settling the question of peasantry by eventually industrializing the agriculture and more importantly creating a capitalism in a backward countries which is like what we see in the Western Europe, is impossible for the bourgeoisie to settle. Thus, Trotsky has the very idealist idea that the working class will be able to make this economical "progress" which is impossible because first of all the proletariat has no reason to do it and secondly the proletariat is not capable of doing what the bourgeoisie can't do under their mode of production. On the economical level, my position is clear: Will the workers in a part of the world in which they had been victorious have an economical policy? Certainly they will. Nevertheless, it is important to note is that what determines this economic policy in this case will be the political situation, the policy will be the economical policy which was made to suit the political tasks of the proletariat in the part of the world in which they have been victorious, such as maintaining of all the proletariat's class institutions, smashing the bourgeoisie state, preventing the rise of bourgeoisie, bureaucracy and so forth, protecting the international revolutionary character of the regime, completely supporting the workers and communists in all other parts of the world... "In countries where the proletariat has been victorious, it cannot be a question of realizing the conditions for socialism (through the free management of the economy by the workers), it can only be a matter of safeguarding the revolution, which requires the maintenance of all the proletariat's class institutions."

You say "Similarly the resolution of the land question is not resolved by the distribution of the land to the peasantry but rather by the collectivization of agriculture." See, this has got nothing to do with my position on the economical issue, in relation to parts of the world where the proletariat had seized power. The answer I would give to this question will be entirely dependent on the political situation in relation to the political tasks of the bourgeoisie. Only when the proletariat has the power in the whole world can it really resolve the agricultural question by establishing the socialist mode of production in the agriculture and this has nothing to do with either distribution of the land or "collectivization" as we understand it. The same thing obviously works for other economical problems of the proletariat as socialism will be the solution to the economical problems of workers' but again, none of those has to do with capitalism's economic "progress". The socialist mode of production is obviously historically "progressive" but it is "progressive" in that it poses an alternative to the old mode of production, the capitalist mode of production, the mode of production which is a growing fetter on the productive forces.

As for the political democratic "tasks", such as equality before the law, representative democracy, those concepts are really meaningless and they don't change anything in the life of the proletariat. Equality before the law doesn't stop racism, representative democracy doesn't stop exploitation and so forth. Those are all obvious. Racism, the rule of the bourgeoisie etc. can only be destroyed by the proletariat. Destroying them is not a task of the bourgeoisie, it is a task of the proletariat.

[NewEast]

It would be interesting to hear someone from the Democratic Socialist Perspective (/Resistance) speak on this- their group abandoned the Permanent Revolution theory in favour of the two-stage theory following the Nicraguan Revolution. It would be good to hear their rationale directly.

[chebol]

NewEast wrote:

It would be interesting to hear someone from the Democratic Socialist Perspective (/Resistance) speak on this- their group abandoned the Permanent Revolution theory in favour of the two-stage theory following the Nicraguan Revolution. It would be good to hear their rationale directly.

I don't have time to weigh in right now, maybe if the debate's still going in a week or so, except to point out that the DSP's position of the Lenin's "two-stage uninterrupted revolution" is not the same as the bastardised menshevik/ stalinist version. Read the links below if your interested in detail/ history.

Sorry for the long list.
History of the DSP including context for the decision (http://www.dsp.org.au/site/?q=node/139)

Intro to Lorimer's "Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution: a Leninist critique" (http://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/permrev.htm) - as already posted. Sorry, if you want the rest you'll have to get the book.
A response by Phil Hearse (http://www.dsp.org.au/site/?q=node/10)
A response by Lorimer to Hearse (http://www.dsp.org.au/site/?q=node/11)
Hearse responds (http://www.dsp.org.au/site/?q=node/12)
Lorimer again (http://www.dsp.org.au/site/?q=node/13)

Lorimer on the CPA's response (http://www.dsp.org.au/site/?q=node/114)
A review of Lorimer (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/63/091.html)

[gilhyle]

Unfortunately the DSP pages dont come out properly on my computer - the text is all strikethrough and there is no wrap around on pages.

Anyway, hope chebol comes back at some point - I note that, like myself, his organisation had some contact with some Turkish comrades who have some interesting ideas on Lenin's view.

Returning to Trotsky, I think I understand that Leo makes a distinction between ( I think mainly economic) tasks which can be surpassed by what a workers state would do to defend itself and those (mainly economic ) tasks that cannot be carried out until there is a single world economy. But he also makes a second distinction in relation to which both these sets of tasks, if I understand correctly, fall into a single category of real tasks by contrast with another set of 'tasks' which are really just empty slogans because of the development of imperialism, such as equality before the law.

A couple of things about this are immediately a matter of concern. Firstly, to suggest that equality before the law no longer exists as a task may be to suggest that even in a stable socialist society (with counter revolution suppressed) you would not aim for all persons to have equal access to the law - seems a little strange. Are you really saying that ?

Secondly there is an implication in this view, prima facie, that it would not be legitimate to build up industrial capacity as a way of "maintaining all of the proletariat's class institutions, smashing the bourgeoisie state, preventing the rise of bourgeoisie, bureaucracy " . I think there were supporters of Bukharin's strategy who took a very conservative approach arguing, basically, for stability rather than progress and waiting for the international revolution and therefore not aiming to build industry. This kind of argument would be a temptation for anyone who saw the defensive strategy of maintianing the institutions of the workers state as the sole appropriate focus in an isolated workers state.

Now I turn to the other point in your last post that strikes me. You suggest that Trotsky thought that "those (democratic -GH) slogans should be supported because only the proletariat can fulfill them and fulfilling them will be the first thing the proletariat will do in a country which it takes power in"

I think this is not true. I dont think you will find Trotsky explicitly saying this. It would appear to follow from the fact that Trotsky supported such slogans. But the transitional method he created and used (i.e. different from Lenin) means that this is not the case. In Trotsky's method it is legitimate for revolutionaries to support a slogan they neither intend to implement nor believe implementable in the form contained in the programme. (I already quoted an example of this for Trotsky - the Workers and Farmers Government.)

This is not true for all slogans. That would be unprincipled. Rather, what Trotsky says is that there are slogans that are generated from the experience of the workers (and peasants), slogans that reflect their needs and/or their consciousness AND which are capable of being fought for using revolutinary methods, i.e. on the basis of organising the working class as an independent class. Because of the methods which can be used to fight for such slogans, the slogans take on a logic of moving the class forward towards seeking power. The calculation is complex. Trotsky would argue that the slogans propounded cannot be those slogans which just reflect the existing consciousness of workers, rather they must be partial slogans which partially answer real needs of the workers. This is what makes them legitimate. (This distinction, btw, and the difficulty of making it has been the basis for many of the splits within Trotskyism).

It is this feature which could legitimately lead Leo to the conclusion that Trotsky must believe that the democratic slogans reflect needs of the working class that can be and must be implemented. After all Trotsky seems to be saying that it is only legitimate to support such slogans if the working class needs them fulfilled.

But if we consider Trotsky's rejection of Lenin's Democratic Dictatorship we see that Trotsky did not necessarily believe this. By rejecting the democratic dictatorship, Trotsky is affirming that the manner in which democratic tasks are accomplished must be, at least, in the manner in which they can be accomplished by a dictatorship of the proletariart.

Now we can go around in circles here. Leo objects to Trotsky thinking the disctatorship of the proletariat should implement a democratic programme. But I am suggesting that Trotsky did not necessily consider it appropriate to do that. He didnt rule it out, but he expeted a dictatorship of the proletariat to implement proletarian policies.

Thus the classic bourgeois demcratic slogan of one person one vote is accomplished not by setting up a representative parliament but by establishing soviets. Equality before the law is established (if we accept Lenins refusial to separate the judiciary from the executive) without establishing an independent judiciary. National independence is realised subject to a preference for international federation of workers states and regional state structures. In other words, these things are 'realised' in a transformed manner, such that one can say either that they were 'realised' or that they were abandoned and superceded.

This post is too long.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 19, 2007 07:57 pm

Just like how historical materialism has now separated the DOTP from "socialism"

Well, that is a far more simple issue. Dictatorship of the proletariat is when the proletariat seized power in one part of the world. Socialism is the mode of production established when the proletariat has expanded it's dictatorship to the whole world.
Not exactly (gotta disagree BIG TIME here) - go back to my stamocap thread. The ideas there are the basis for a worldwide DOTP (pyramidal holdings by the state over the commanding heights, control over the state and over smaller enterprises by workers' councils, etc.).

I differentiate the DOTP from socialism in one basic idea: the aggravation of the class struggle until the practical liquidation of the bourgeoisie (many physically given their resistance and the employ of many lumpenproles, others through class "assimilation"), which still exists in the former but not the latter (a question of which I asked in the Learning forum, if you remember).

[Lenin alluded to this in some of his works, but Stalin coined the term and put it into the wrong historical stage ("along with the construction of socialism" rather than aggravation under the DOTP). Then there's Mao, who's way off base.]

What I'm saying here is that the purely working-class task would be that of socialist revolution and establishing the GLOBAL DOTP.


Well, all those examples point out to the problems experienced by the bourgeoisie while establishing their rule. Obviously there were problems, more insightful factions opposed to conservative bourgeois factions etc. and this demonstrates that the crisis existed even during capitalism's ascendancy, but from the general perspective, all the progressiveness of the bourgeoisie in its ascendancy was in reality the establishment of the bourgeois socio-political superstructure. However, because of the parallels existing it class societies, it was possible to integrate the superstructures of the old mode of production to the superstructures of the new mode of production.

You almost lost me there, but the maintenance of old superstructures just goes to how not-so-progressive a class can be, in spite of more radical factions' ideas (ideas which I commend for their time, mind you ;) ).



gilhyle:


Equality before the law is established (if we accept Lenins refusial to separate the judiciary from the executive) without establishing an independent judiciary.

Can someone please explain this part???

[Leo]

gillhyle;

I will respond to your post later, right now it is four o'clock in the morning here!

Hammer;


Not exactly (gotta disagree BIG TIME here) - go back to my stamocap thread. The ideas there are the basis for a worldwide DOTP (pyramidal holdings by the state over the commanding heights, control over the state and over smaller enterprises by workers' councils, etc.).

I differentiate the DOTP from socialism in one basic idea: the aggravation of the class struggle until the practical liquidation of the bourgeoisie (many physically given their resistance and the employ of many lumpenproles, others through class "assimilation"), which still exists in the former but not the latter (a question of which I asked in the Learning forum, if you remember).

[Lenin alluded to this in some of his works, but Stalin coined the term and put it into the wrong historical stage ("along with the construction of socialism" rather than aggravation under the DOTP). Then there's Mao, who's way off base.]

What I'm saying here is that the purely working-class task would be that of socialist revolution and establishing the GLOBAL DOTP.

You seem to be thinking that dictatorship of the proletariat can't establish the socialist mode of production when it's world-wide because you think that first of all bourgeois elements have to be liquidated. I think you are making a very simple mistake here: the liquidation of the existing bourgeois elements can and of course will start when the proletariat has gained power in one part of the world, but this liquidation can only be completed with the world-wide establishment of the socialist mode of production, so if we wait until we as the proletariat manage to liquidate the remaining bourgeois elements before establishing the socialist mode of production is established, we will practically be waiting forever because without establishing the socialist mode of production, this is an impossible task. After all, you are talking about abolishing classes: you can't completely abolish the classes before installing the socialist mode of production as it is the socialist mode of production that will abolish the classes!


You almost lost me there, but the maintenance of old superstructures just goes to how not-so-progressive a class can be, in spite of more radical factions' ideas (ideas which I commend for their time, mind you wink.gif ).

But you see, what was really progressive about the bourgeoisie is not simply all capitalists being "socially progressive" or having "progressive ideas", it was being progressive over feudalism as a mode of production. So in that sense, anything that was working in replacing the old mode of production, including integrating the old superstructure, was technically "progressive". However, of course, communists in that period supported the most "progressive" faction of the bourgeoisie in a socially utilitarian way - asking the question "supporting whom would be better for the interests working class" and this was possible because imperialism was not tying all different bourgeois factions together.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:46 am
[gilhyle:


Equality before the law is established (if we accept Lenins refusial to separate the judiciary from the executive) without establishing an independent judiciary.

Can someone please explain this part???
Basic idea of the constitution of the capitalist state is the separation of powers, often referred back to Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws (a bit inaccurately) Lenin does not accept this dinstinction for the purposes of establishing the workers state. Arguably a stance which requires a militant direct democracy for it to work. Thus in the ABC of Communism, Bukharin and Preobrazhensky write that "For the exploiter, the only right that remains is the right of being judged" Popular courts, they argue should be elected by workers, workers should take turns on these courts, the exploiters should be disenfranchised, etc.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Actually, you'd be surprised on my stance regarding the judiciary (and I do know of Montesquieu). I do believe that the judiciary needs to be qualifiably independent and subject only to the law of the land. You know what happened to the judiciary under Stalin, right?

[Not able to block his enactment of the unconstitutional State Defense Committee]

You also know that Lenin's proposal for Rabkrin and the Central Control Commission ultimately wasn't enough, right?

However, that being said, the qualifications for electing and being elected to the judiciary should be EXACTLY the same as those for electing and being elected to organs of state power and administration (particularly the disenfranchisements noted in the 1918 constitution).

[The same term limits should apply.]

Furthermore, the supreme court should be limited to constitutional interpretation (ie, if laws passed are in conformity with the constitution, or if amendments passed are in conformity with the spirit of the constitution and the letter of certain "inadmissible" sections) and final appeals. Regular legal interpretation (ie, if EXECUTIVE regulations enacted are in conformity with established laws) should belong to the "legislature" (in quotes).

[Morello]

I don't know much about the topic, but i'll go by the actual title. Permanent Revolution. Permanent. How is it Permanent...any Government can be overthrown. I don't think any Government is Permanent at all, because there can always be a Revolution against it. Maybe it's deeper than that, but there's my 2 cents.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Mark [email protected] 23, 2007 02:38 am
I don't know much about the topic, but i'll go by the actual title. Permanent Revolution. Permanent. How is it Permanent...any Government can be overthrown. I don't think any Government is Permanent at all, because there can always be a Revolution against it. Maybe it's deeper than that, but there's my 2 cents.
You are not exactly right and not wrong either.

Anyway an intresting comment by Marx on Permanent Revolution


Although the German workers cannot come to power and achieve the realization of their class interests without passing through a protracted revolutionary development, this time they can at least be certain that the first act of the approaching revolutionary drama will coincide with the direct victory of their own class in France and will thereby be accelerated. But they themselves must contribute most to their final victory, by informing themselves of their own class interests, by taking up their independent political position as soon as possible, by not allowing themselves to be misled by the hypocritical phrases of the democratic petty bourgeoisie into doubting for one minute the necessity of an independently organized party of the proletariat. Their battle-cry must be: The Permanent Revolution.

Address to the Central Comittee of the Communist League (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm)

Any idea whether Trotsky developed his theory from this one ?

[sexyguy]

It might inform this debate if we had another look at what Lenin said about Trotsky and his “permanent revolution“. here are two quotes from:
DISRUPTION OF UNITY UNDER COVER OF OUTCRIES FOR UNITY Published in May 1914

The only ground the "Tushino turncoats" have for claiming that they stand above groups is that they "borrow" their ideas from one group one day and from another the next day. Trotsky was an ardent Iskrist in 1901-03, and Ryazanov described his role at the Congress of 1903 as "Lenin's cudgel". At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i.e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that "between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf". In 1904-05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left "permanent revolution" theory. In 1906-07, he approached the Bolsheviks, and in the spring of 1907 he declared that he was in agreement with Rosa Luxemburg. (My emphasis added.)

To sum up:
1) Trotsky does not explain, nor does he understand, the historical significance of the ideological disagreements among the various Marxist trends and groups, although these disagreements run through the twenty years' history of Social-Democracy and concern the fundamental questions of the present day (as we shall show later on);
2) Trotsky fails to understand that the main specific features of group-division are nominal recognition of unity and actual disunity;
3) Under cover of "non-factionalism" Trotsky is championing the interests of a group abroad which particularly lacks definite principles and has no basis in the working-class movement in Russia.
All that glitters is not gold. There is much glitter and sound in Trotsky's phrases, but they are meaningless. Lenin 1914. (My emphasis added.)

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ So I take it you're another one of the few genuine "Leninists" (revolutionary Marxists) on this board like myself? ;)

[sexyguy]

^^^ So I take it you're another one of the few genuine "Leninists" (revolutionary Marxists) on this board like myself?

Well I am certain that everything on the planet is conditioned by the imperialist ‘overproduction’ crisis which is driving the US ruling class into escalating its war drive in an attempt to stay on top of their rival capitalist competitors.

I am also certain that the only solution to this insane warmongering is for communists to agitate in the working class and the poor masses everywhere, for a concentrated campaign of defeating imperialist war plans by establishing proletarian dictatorships.

I am certain also, that Lenin was far and away the best exponent and practitioner of defeating imperialist war and building proletarian dictatorship. This is because Lenin knew the importance of the theoretical fight against ’left’ reformism in all its forms, which weakens the fighting capacity of the working class by proffering “solutions”, which, within the imperialist crisis reality, are an impossibility and a dangerous trap as much recent history has demonstrated.

But feel free to call me what you like, everyone else does. ;)

[gilhyle]

The problem with your quote is that the only point contained in the Lenin quote that is about the theory of Permanent Revolution is the label 'absurdly leftist'. The rest of the quote is concerned with Lenin's criticism of Trotsky for his mediationist approach to the splits in the Russian Party. The two are not really intrinsically connected.

In any case the 'permanent revolution' theory being criticised here is that presented in Results and Prospects which was more schematic than Trotsky's mature theory. Secondly Lenin practice change significantly in 1917. Im not saying he adopted Trotsky's approach. It is more reasonable to say that both Lenin and Trotsky acted in 1917 in a manner different from their previous positions (not necessarily inconsistent but different), But it is clear that the seizure of power in 1917 is not prefigured in the programmatic documents of the Bolshevik faction written by Lenin.

Most objective commentators, I think, would say that Lenin's comments on Trotsky in the 1907-14 period were of limited value. He rarely if ever focused his attention on Trotsky and when he did it was not in any depth and did not display any significant familiarity with Trotsky's writings.

So should we look to Lenin to assist us in our assessment of Trotsky as you suggest ? I think not.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:58 pm
Lenin's practice changed significantly in 1917. Im not saying he adopted Trotsky's approach. It is more reasonable to say that both Lenin and Trotsky acted in 1917 in a manner different from their previous positions (not necessarily inconsistent but different), But it is clear that the seizure of power in 1917 is not prefigured in the programmatic documents of the Bolshevik faction written by Lenin.

Most objective commentators, I think, would say that Lenin's comments on Trotsky in the 1907-14 period were of limited value. He rarely if ever focused his attention on Trotsky and when he did it was not in any depth and did not display any significant familiarity with Trotsky's writings.
^^^ You're right, too. As per ComradeRed, Lenin interchangeably (and mistakenly, I think) used "workers' state" with "workers' and peasants' state."

[Stigma]

Most objective commentators, I think, would say that Lenin's comments on Trotsky in the 1907-14 period were of limited value.

Of limited value to Trotskyists, certainly.
Who are the “objective” commentators and why would they say “that Lenin's comments on Trotsky in the 1907-14 period were of limited value.”?



He rarely if ever focused his attention on Trotsky and when he did it was not in any depth and did not display any significant familiarity with Trotsky's writings.

Well, poor old Lenin gets an ‘F’ from Gilhyle.


So should we look to Lenin to assist us in our assessment of Trotsky as you suggest ? I think not.


If “DISRUPTION OF UNITY UNDER COVER OF OUTCRIES FOR UNITY” By Lenin, Published in May 1914, is not an attack on Trotsky, what is it? And if anyone wants me to trawl round and find all the others, and post them, I will. And you can see for yourselves whether you think they are of “limited value” or not.

NOTE: Formerly Sexyguy (problems with my service)

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:31 pm

Of limited value to Trotskyists, certainly.

For the puroses of this discussion, I dont count myself a Trotskyist.

I yield to no one in my admiration for Lenin.

But not even Lenin gets to be insightful and right about everything - treat yourself with more respect. Argument from authority went out with the medieval schoolmen.

With the benefit of an old Soviet Compilation, I think I have read most of his comments on Trotsky and there isnt a substantive analysis of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution anywhere in Lenin's writings. Lenin's criticisms of Trotsky's approach to party building are mostly well made. But the fact is Lenin never paid significant attention to the theory being discussed here.

You suggested reading Lenin to assess the Theory of Permanent Revolution. There is nothing of real substance to read......go on trawl, prove me wrong.