Die Neue Zeit
22nd November 2007, 03:41
"Prerequisite" threads:
Stamocap (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65240&view=findpost&p=1292297131)
Two Stalinisms?, State-based Stalinism vs. "Partyocracy" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/two-stalinisms-t63356/index.html)
The limitations of directly materialist analysis (http://www.revleft.com/vb/limitations-directly-materialist-t68278/index.html)
In the usual debate regarding Stalin vs. his successors, ComradeOm brought up one particular aspect that hasn't been discussed much (and something which even I didn't consider in my thinking regarding Lenin vs. Stalin vs. Stalin's successors): primitive accumulation. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/nation-sates-and-t65259/index.html)
So I went back to the three links above to find some cohesive attempt at analyzing the nature of the Soviet regime under various "leaders." In the third link above, I split the analysis of the superstructure into two parts: the "skeletal framework" (because without a strong framework, the whole building could still collapse on itself and become a pile of rubble above an otherwise strong base) and the "skin."
Going back to my remarks regarding "primitive stamocap" (first link), I can say that there was base continuity between the Bolsheviks and their bureaucratic successors, in the form of state capitalism (not that I "blame" Lenin as a "Leninist" myself, because Russia simply wasn't as ready for a proper socialist revolution as Trotsky thought). Alas, that also poses great challenges to the "degenerate workers' state" position. At best, Lenin acknowledged that Russia was "not actually a workers’ state but a workers’ and peasants’ state." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm) At worst, we all know the "left" criticisms regarding the prevalent one-man management systems put in place.
However, in terms of "framework" continuity, there was discontinuity between the Bolsheviks and their bureaucratic successors. While the former wanted the state capitalism to develop under a "revolutionary-democratic" framework, all the latter wanted a more bureaucratic approach instead (see the fourth link and my mention of one Moshe Lewin, plus all the usual Trotskyist stuff regarding "Bonapartism" under Stalin and his successors). At the very least, according to Lenin, workers' under "revolutionary democracy" (as opposed to under the DOTP) should exercise a "control" function against corruption and bureaucratic tendencies (investigations, audits). Under Stalin and his successors, the bureaucracy got more and more control without a real workers' "control" check, and the party itself became bureaucratized.
Within the same "framework," however (because organization is the concern here), there was discontinuity between the Stalin regime itself and its successors. Stalin's successors didn't have to deal with primitive accumulation (and thus organize around it). Also, regardless of whether Moshe Lewin or I stand correct (his insistence on the "partyocracy" facade versus my wavering position on a genuine "partyocracy"), the bureaucracy didn't have a Stalin figure or a secret police organization to deal with as the "check of last resort." Some of the "anti-revisionist" arguments center around the question of the bureaucracy (but alas, as an afterthought to the "skin," which I'll mention immediately below).
Now, onto the "skin." Because there was already a "framework" discontinuity between the Stalin regime itself and its successors, it is only natural that there existed "skin-level" discontinuity (mind you, though, that the "skin" was/is pretty thick). This is where all the "anti-revisionist" talk of "peaceful coexistence" and the Kautskyist concept of a "party of the people" comes into play.
[Initially, I was going to put my "partyocracy" stuff vs. Moshe Lewin's position here, but when I thought once more about the base-framework-skin analysis, putting it here wouldn't have made any sense at all.]
Thoughts?
Stamocap (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65240&view=findpost&p=1292297131)
Two Stalinisms?, State-based Stalinism vs. "Partyocracy" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/two-stalinisms-t63356/index.html)
The limitations of directly materialist analysis (http://www.revleft.com/vb/limitations-directly-materialist-t68278/index.html)
In the usual debate regarding Stalin vs. his successors, ComradeOm brought up one particular aspect that hasn't been discussed much (and something which even I didn't consider in my thinking regarding Lenin vs. Stalin vs. Stalin's successors): primitive accumulation. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/nation-sates-and-t65259/index.html)
So I went back to the three links above to find some cohesive attempt at analyzing the nature of the Soviet regime under various "leaders." In the third link above, I split the analysis of the superstructure into two parts: the "skeletal framework" (because without a strong framework, the whole building could still collapse on itself and become a pile of rubble above an otherwise strong base) and the "skin."
Going back to my remarks regarding "primitive stamocap" (first link), I can say that there was base continuity between the Bolsheviks and their bureaucratic successors, in the form of state capitalism (not that I "blame" Lenin as a "Leninist" myself, because Russia simply wasn't as ready for a proper socialist revolution as Trotsky thought). Alas, that also poses great challenges to the "degenerate workers' state" position. At best, Lenin acknowledged that Russia was "not actually a workers’ state but a workers’ and peasants’ state." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm) At worst, we all know the "left" criticisms regarding the prevalent one-man management systems put in place.
However, in terms of "framework" continuity, there was discontinuity between the Bolsheviks and their bureaucratic successors. While the former wanted the state capitalism to develop under a "revolutionary-democratic" framework, all the latter wanted a more bureaucratic approach instead (see the fourth link and my mention of one Moshe Lewin, plus all the usual Trotskyist stuff regarding "Bonapartism" under Stalin and his successors). At the very least, according to Lenin, workers' under "revolutionary democracy" (as opposed to under the DOTP) should exercise a "control" function against corruption and bureaucratic tendencies (investigations, audits). Under Stalin and his successors, the bureaucracy got more and more control without a real workers' "control" check, and the party itself became bureaucratized.
Within the same "framework," however (because organization is the concern here), there was discontinuity between the Stalin regime itself and its successors. Stalin's successors didn't have to deal with primitive accumulation (and thus organize around it). Also, regardless of whether Moshe Lewin or I stand correct (his insistence on the "partyocracy" facade versus my wavering position on a genuine "partyocracy"), the bureaucracy didn't have a Stalin figure or a secret police organization to deal with as the "check of last resort." Some of the "anti-revisionist" arguments center around the question of the bureaucracy (but alas, as an afterthought to the "skin," which I'll mention immediately below).
Now, onto the "skin." Because there was already a "framework" discontinuity between the Stalin regime itself and its successors, it is only natural that there existed "skin-level" discontinuity (mind you, though, that the "skin" was/is pretty thick). This is where all the "anti-revisionist" talk of "peaceful coexistence" and the Kautskyist concept of a "party of the people" comes into play.
[Initially, I was going to put my "partyocracy" stuff vs. Moshe Lewin's position here, but when I thought once more about the base-framework-skin analysis, putting it here wouldn't have made any sense at all.]
Thoughts?