Originally posted by JohnnyDarko+August 12, 2007 01:36 pm--> (JohnnyDarko @ August 12, 2007 01:36 pm) I noticed that all Leninist & offshoots revolutions seems to delve into capitalism after some "revisionist period" during their "transitional socialist state period" which eventually leads back to capitalism.
In my opinion, it seems that revisionism is an inherent symptom of a transitional ruling vangaurd party. Whether it is or its just caused by some "capitalist roaders" that got in the party it still leads to the conclusion that the usual vangaurd party organization ("democratic centralism") by itself is unable to counter revisionism/"capitalist roaders" from within. (My Opinion)
My question is....what tactics do you (you being anyone whos theory includes vanguard party[ies] and democratic centralism) propose/theorize/suggest to use to stop the reaction within the party? [/b]
While, as a "Leninist," I oppose your POV, I also think that the orthodox "Ricardian" Marxist poster ComradeRed did a better job at calling us "revisionists" than you have - by cutting the politically superstructural talk above and going straight at the base.
The premise is simple: the DOTP itself proper (as opposed to the historical RDDOTPATP in regards to the peasantry) isn't exactly capitalist (specifically state capitalist) or socialist. Lenin implied that it was a separate historical stage on its own (and I agree with his assessment). It combines features of both.
For example, "wage slavery" still exists, in spite of all the red flags and workers' power that abound. In terms of ownership (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=65240):
Which brings me to my question on the future: Is it "revisionist" to believe that revolutionary stamocap can "evolve" into socialism? I do keep in mind that only revolutionary change can replace monopoly capitalism to revolutionary stamocap.
From below:
[i]Originally posted by
[email protected] 15, 2007 06:17 pm
Hammer [...] is asking for opinions on whether:
a) some concept of the 'commanding heights' of the economy will be used to identify what will and will not be owned and/or controlled by the State and
b) whether a system of pyramidal majority shareholdings [...] by the state would be used to effect this.
ALSO, both Bolshevik-Leninists and Marxist-Leninists are WRONG in regards to their "main theory" of stamocap, about Big Business merging with the state: that's economic FASCISM.
By revolutionary stamocap, I refer again to the hourglass in the "monopoly capitalism" (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65105) thread. On a global level, under "revolutionary" stamocap the commanding heights where the consolidated multinational monopolies and oligopolies operate would be publicly owned by a combination of "pension socialism" (http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/show_article.php?aid=321) (warning: "market socialist" link) and state ownership. A chained / pyramidal majority shareholding structure would exist, wherein the ultimate owners and controllers are state holding companies acting as a collective Gosplan and Gossnab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossnab), made possible due to 50%+1 ownership in company shares.
"Paramount importance attaches to the 'holding system,' already briefly referred to above. The German economist, Heymann, probably the first to call attention to this matter, describes the essence of it in this way: The head of the concern controls the principal company (literally: the 'mother company'); the latter reigns over the subsidiary companies ('daughter companies') which in their turn control still other subsidiaries ('grandchild companies'), etc. In this way, it is possible with a comparatively small capital to dominate immense spheres of production. Indeed, if holding 50 per cent of the capital is always sufficient to control a company, the head of the concern needs only one million to control eight million in the second subsidiaries. And if this ‘interlocking’ is extended, it is possible with one million to control sixteen million, thirty-two million, etc." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch03.htm#v22zz99h-226-GUESS) (Lenin)
To elaborate further on the pyramidal majority shareholding structure under the proposed revolutionary stamocap system, at the top you'd have the state holding companies - each 50+1% or more owned by the state, with the remainder owned by the public directly (but mainly through "private" pension funds, a government pension plan for retirees, and other management funds). Next, those holding companies would each own 50%+1 (or more) of the voting shares of the various consolidated companies (with remainder under direct public ownership). These consolidated companies, in turn, would own 50+1% or more of their direct subsidiaries (similar remainder fate), who may in turn assume similar ownership and control positions over lower subsidiaries (similar remainder fate), and so on.
Meanwhile, the niche businesses within the economy - and there are more and more of those by the day due to the "shrinking middle" - would remain private; they generally don't have more than 100 employees or so. They wouldn't be able to corner bigger markets - because of "Gossnab 2.0," the law, and economic disincentives (immediate nationalization upon being big enough to be deemed part of the "commanding heights").
"The production of articles for consumption has another character. To be sure we have here the gigantic industries (sugar factories and breweries), but as a general thing the little industry is still generally dominant. Here it is necessary to satisfy the individual needs of the market, and the small industry can do this better than the large. The number of productive plants is here large and would not ordinarily be capable of reduction as in the production of means of production. Here also production for the open market still rules. But because of the greater number of consumers this is much more difficult to supervise than is production for production. The number of operators’ agreements is fewer here. The organization of the production and circulation of all articles of consumption accordingly offers much greater difficulties than that of the means of production." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/socrev/pt2-2.htm#s6) (Kautsky)
v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v
State capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no immediate rungs. (http://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/solidarity_lenin.html) (Lenin)
More (same anarchist site):
"For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly."
"State capitalism would be our salvation; if we had it in Russia, the transition to full socialism would be easy, would be within our grasp, because state capitalism is something centralised, calculated, controlled and socialised, and that is exactly what we lack."
Comrade Red then said these:
Comrade Red
I would think it to be more of a unique fusion of revisionism and reformism to assert that socialism could emerge from capitalism without a revolution. A more orthodox fellow would say it's just revisionism, but I think it has elements of both.
(And yeah, State Monopoly Capitalism is still capitalism.)
The point is the abolition of wage-slavery, not simply a change of guard or making the chains out of gold (as I've said elsewhere: it doesn't matter whether your chains are made of gold or lead, you're still a fucking slave!).
...
Don't go into that bastardic r-word, unless you want to call Lenin a revisionist, too. :angry: OK, Lenin is a revisionist...if you want.
The plain fact of the matter is that Lenin used Marxist-sounding rhetoric for a particular purpose (establishing capitalism in Russia).