Die Neue Zeit
23rd February 2008, 19:03
In response to a Learning thread on the absence of the bourgeoisie in the Soviet state, and especially the notion that bourgeois rule is quintessential to the capitalist mode of production, I felt it necessary to compile previous statements of mine regarding that notion into this thread.
So far, there are at least three possibilities for the capitalist mode of production to exist without bourgeois rule (the bold titles are links).
Fascism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/fascism-t65007/index.html)
The theory of fascism differs per country, but "ideas" can not be separated from the class that it grows from. It is, in essence, a drastic strategy taken by the capitalists when they are on the edge of getting appropriated. Its footsoldiers come from the class of small property-owners and beggars, who are lead by and receive funding from the upper tier of the ruling class. It is historical and social phenomena centered on a revolutionary situation, where the petty bourgeoisie side with the bourgeoisie in dispelling of political opposition to their social rule.
I must admit that Trotsky was indeed brilliant in being the first Marxist to identify the class base of fascism, though I think it's a bit more complex.
The collapse of normal capitalism impacts the petit-bourgeoisie more than it does the existing bourgeoisie. It is the petit-bourgeoisie who cough up the fascist program and agitate amongst themselves and the lumpenproles (as well as less conscious elements of the working class :( ) before receiving funding from the bourgeoisie. The caricature of Hitler's right-handed salute simultaneously receiving money from an industrialist may be accurate, but it also overestimates the role of said industrialist.
Those elements of the petit-bourgeoisie who constitute the political rulers of the new fascist regime not only proceed to crush revolutionary sentiment, but may also move ruthlessly against the existing bourgeoisie, in an attempt to appropriate their role for themselves.
yes, indeed Lenin was speaking of the petty-bourgeoisie. I wasn't trying to relate it to the United States, more just speaking of how when capitalism begins to decay and the bourgeoisie seek to secure their power how it often leads to fascism as an end result because otherwise their power is more limited. fascist policies are introduced for the bourgeoisie to secure their "state".
Not exactly. As I said above, the existing bourgeoisie will have been caught between a rock and a hard place, because the fascist "devils" that they don't know (as compared to the prole "devils" that they do know) will eventually be double-crossed by the ascending petit-bourgeoisie and swept aside.
Usually when I read discussions on fascism, they usually revolve around its relationship to the capitalist mode of production. I find it intriguing that a fellow "Leninist Marxist" has separated fascism from capitalism altogether, even while reiterating what I said above regarding the proletarian "devils" the bourgeoisie know and the petit-bourgeois "devils" they don't know.
Comrade Nadezhda, you mention fascism's opposition to economic liberalism. However, you should keep in mind that economic liberalism isn't a prerequisite at all for having a capitalist mode of production. After all, Lenin and the Bolsheviks pursued a policy of state capitalism precisely to introduce capitalist relations as part of "revolutionary democracy."
Revolutionary Democracy and "Proletarian Bonapartism" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-stalin-and-t66656/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)
...
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.
Proletocracy/DOTP (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stamocap-t59014/index.html)
As I said either here or in the "How should we be led?" thread, part of the problem with Marx's lack of attention (or ignorance, IMO, hence my historical and class ranking of Lenin way above Marx in my Political Profile) to the post-revolutionary social structure is that said proletocratic structure is still a capitalist one (although one without "Wall Street" decorations) - ie, within the capitalist mode of production!
As for choosing between said dichotomy, like in my "class relations" thread, things are more complex in the "multi-economic" era of proletocracy: the reduced private economy (with an expansion of cooperative businesses and the parecon economy within), the state-capitalist economy (centralized planning by a state BUREAUCRACY), the socialist/directly democratic economy, and the communist/moneyless economy.
Although this was hinted at decades ago in a mere era of "revolutionary democracy" (Lenin's Left-Wing Childishness), the key parts are applicable for the post-revolutionary social structure.
So far, there are at least three possibilities for the capitalist mode of production to exist without bourgeois rule (the bold titles are links).
Fascism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/fascism-t65007/index.html)
The theory of fascism differs per country, but "ideas" can not be separated from the class that it grows from. It is, in essence, a drastic strategy taken by the capitalists when they are on the edge of getting appropriated. Its footsoldiers come from the class of small property-owners and beggars, who are lead by and receive funding from the upper tier of the ruling class. It is historical and social phenomena centered on a revolutionary situation, where the petty bourgeoisie side with the bourgeoisie in dispelling of political opposition to their social rule.
I must admit that Trotsky was indeed brilliant in being the first Marxist to identify the class base of fascism, though I think it's a bit more complex.
The collapse of normal capitalism impacts the petit-bourgeoisie more than it does the existing bourgeoisie. It is the petit-bourgeoisie who cough up the fascist program and agitate amongst themselves and the lumpenproles (as well as less conscious elements of the working class :( ) before receiving funding from the bourgeoisie. The caricature of Hitler's right-handed salute simultaneously receiving money from an industrialist may be accurate, but it also overestimates the role of said industrialist.
Those elements of the petit-bourgeoisie who constitute the political rulers of the new fascist regime not only proceed to crush revolutionary sentiment, but may also move ruthlessly against the existing bourgeoisie, in an attempt to appropriate their role for themselves.
yes, indeed Lenin was speaking of the petty-bourgeoisie. I wasn't trying to relate it to the United States, more just speaking of how when capitalism begins to decay and the bourgeoisie seek to secure their power how it often leads to fascism as an end result because otherwise their power is more limited. fascist policies are introduced for the bourgeoisie to secure their "state".
Not exactly. As I said above, the existing bourgeoisie will have been caught between a rock and a hard place, because the fascist "devils" that they don't know (as compared to the prole "devils" that they do know) will eventually be double-crossed by the ascending petit-bourgeoisie and swept aside.
Usually when I read discussions on fascism, they usually revolve around its relationship to the capitalist mode of production. I find it intriguing that a fellow "Leninist Marxist" has separated fascism from capitalism altogether, even while reiterating what I said above regarding the proletarian "devils" the bourgeoisie know and the petit-bourgeois "devils" they don't know.
Comrade Nadezhda, you mention fascism's opposition to economic liberalism. However, you should keep in mind that economic liberalism isn't a prerequisite at all for having a capitalist mode of production. After all, Lenin and the Bolsheviks pursued a policy of state capitalism precisely to introduce capitalist relations as part of "revolutionary democracy."
Revolutionary Democracy and "Proletarian Bonapartism" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-stalin-and-t66656/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)
...
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.
Proletocracy/DOTP (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stamocap-t59014/index.html)
As I said either here or in the "How should we be led?" thread, part of the problem with Marx's lack of attention (or ignorance, IMO, hence my historical and class ranking of Lenin way above Marx in my Political Profile) to the post-revolutionary social structure is that said proletocratic structure is still a capitalist one (although one without "Wall Street" decorations) - ie, within the capitalist mode of production!
As for choosing between said dichotomy, like in my "class relations" thread, things are more complex in the "multi-economic" era of proletocracy: the reduced private economy (with an expansion of cooperative businesses and the parecon economy within), the state-capitalist economy (centralized planning by a state BUREAUCRACY), the socialist/directly democratic economy, and the communist/moneyless economy.
Although this was hinted at decades ago in a mere era of "revolutionary democracy" (Lenin's Left-Wing Childishness), the key parts are applicable for the post-revolutionary social structure.