Stagism

[core_1]

Hi all,
I've read ''The State and Revolution'' but could somone give me the reasons why a country, before attempting to install Socialism has to pas through advanced capitalism or bourgeois democracy?
Thanks a bunch

[BobKKKindle$]

Socialism can only exist in a society where the forces of production (society's ability to produce material wealth) have developed to a level which allows people to enjoy an acceptable quality of life. If the forces of production are below this level, then a more equal distribution of wealth would simply create a system of generalized want. Marx wrote in The German Ideology (Feuerbach: Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlooks, Private Property and Communism)


A development of the productive forces is the absolutely necessary practical premise [of Communism], because without it want is generalized, and with want the struggle for necessities begins again, and that means that all the old crap must revive.
The German Ideology (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a4)

This relates to your question, because capitalism allows for the rapid development of productive forces, and so it has been argued that every country requires an extended period of capitalism before a socialist revolution can occur, such that in countries where a bourgeois revolution has not taken place, the main task of socialists should be to agitate for a bourgeois (as distinct from socialist) revolution, so that the feudal fetters on development can be removed.

However, the issue is actually more complex than it appears. Countries which have emerged late from the feudal mode of production are faced with the prospect of developing alongside the imperialist nations, with poses external obstacles to development. The bourgeois class in an imperialist-oppressed country is weak, and closely tied to foreign imperial interests, or the remnants of the feudal regime, and so is unable to carry out its history tasks of introducing democratic institutions and initiating industrial development. This means that imperialist-oppressed countries are unable to develop within the framework of capitalism, which means that the "stagist" concept of development is not applicable in these countries. It is, however, also in these countries that socialist revolution is a possibility, because they represent weak links in the chain of imperialism.

These observations form the basis of Trotsky's theory of permanant revolution, in which he argues that the weakness of the bourgeoisie means that the proletariat must fulfill bourgeois tasks (tasks which have traditionally been assigned to the bourgeoisie) and then continue the revolution to carry out socialist tasks. The revolution must also extend to other countries, because the lack of industrial development in the imperialist-oppressed countries, combined with the international division of labour, means it is impossible for a country to develop socialism in isolation from the rest of the world.

[core_1]

Brilliant
thats been bugging me tar

[trivas7]

Socialism can only exist in a society where the forces of production (society's ability to produce material wealth) have developed to a level which allows people to enjoy an acceptable quality of life. If the forces of production are below this level, then a more equal distribution of wealth would simply create a system of generalized want. Marx wrote in The German Ideology (Feuerbach: Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlooks, Private Property and Communism)

By this analysis, Mao's revolution in China should not have occured, yes? Trotskyists argue that the party was doomed to its present character, that of petty-bourgeois nationalism, because of the near-annihilation of the workers' movement in the KMT betrayal of 1927, which was made possible by Stalin's order that the Communists disarm and surrender.

[apathy maybe]

Yeah, I love Marxian analysis. It is so utopian. Everything has to go just right. And when it does, everyone can join and sing hands in a happy socialist future.

Actually, Marxian theory can be useful, for example to explain why the Russian Revolution, and others, fucked up. But when it comes down to it, the real reason socialism hasn't happened yet is because fuckers keep taking control over the system.

Meh.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Just think of stagism as something simple; like, say driving a car.

You can't go from 0 (feudalism) to 60 (communism) without switching gears, or else the engine will explode (or something, I'm not a mechanic).

Think of switching gears like moving through the stages of development. You have to go through First, before you can go through Third, etc etc.

It is simplistic when you compare it to the development of a society or nation, but you get the idea.

TGOW

[professorchaos]

By this analysis, Mao's revolution in China should not have occured, yes? Trotskyists argue that the party was doomed to its present character, that of petty-bourgeois nationalism, because of the near-annihilation of the workers' movement in the KMT betrayal of 1927, which was made possible by Stalin's order that the Communists disarm and surrender.
No; by this analysis, Mao's revolution could only end in the establishment of capitalism.
This comrade (http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/theory0a53.html?subaction=showfull&id=1082851437&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) said it best, I think.

[BobKKKindle$]

By this analysis, Mao's revolution in China should not have occured [etc]

What are you trying to say? The Chinese Revolution resulted in the abolition of capitalist property relations (and hence the creation of a workers state and the implementation of many progressive changes, such as the reform of marriage laws) but the revolution was based on the peasantry (the proletariat was not actively involved in the seizure of power) and so the political structures which emerged suffered from bureaucratic degeneration. The bureaucratic stratum which exercises political hegemony within the party organization is currently attempting to strengthen its position, by securing ownership of the means of production through market reforms. Trotsky recognized that the problem of bureaucratic degeneration would eventually lead to the restoration of capitalism and thus argued that the creation of proletarian democracy through a political (which, distinct from social, does not overthrow existing property relations, but eliminates the bureaucratic stratum) revolution would be necessary to protect social property.

[Yehuda Stern]

First of all, it is not true that a country must go through a capitalist stage before it can reach socialism. Analyzing politics on the national level is not the practice of Marxists but of Stalinists and Social-Democrats attempting to justify their on reformism. What's true is that socialism could not come before world capitalism reached its highest stage, that of imperialism, and began to decay. Meanwhile many countries remained backward, although the world economy is capitalist and over time most countries have had to adapt to this fact, even if remains of feudalism remain in every country of the third world.

The latter fact has been named the law of combined and uneven development by Lenin and Trotsky. Trotsky based the permanent revolution theory on this law - the bourgeoisie of the colonial countries already became reactionary before it achieved state power, and could not carry through the democratic revolution. Both the democratic and socialist tasks fall on the shoulders of the workers in the third world.

The Maoist revolution does not contradict this point of view. Any Trotskyist would recognize that the Maoist revolution was carried out through the extermination of the revolutionary workers and the oppression of the working class in general (that these 'Trotskyists' believe that the peasant-based revolution which did this created a workers' state shows their contempt for the workers). Only after the working class was smashed did the Maoist bourgeois nationalists feel safe enough to carry through aspects of the democratic revolution and nationalize the economy. In this they carried through a bourgeois-capitalist revolution, not a socialist one.

Trotsky did recognize that the Soviet bureaucracy would bring back capitalism. But he completely denied that it could do so without a civil war. This civil war was that of the late 1930s, when the Soviet Bolshevik-Leninists were liquidated. But in China there had been no workers' revolution. This is proven by the fact that the Maoist regime is now reverting back to market capitalism (as opposed to state capitalism), without any violence that can be justified as 'civil war.'

[Led Zeppelin]

Trotsky did recognize that the Soviet bureaucracy would bring back capitalism. But he completely denied that it could do so without a civil war.

This is not true:



In order better to understand the character of the present Soviet Union, let us make two different hypotheses about its future. Let us assume first that the Soviet bureaucracy is overthrown by a revolutionary party having all the attributes of the old Bolshevism, enriched moreover by the world experience of the recent period. Such a party would begin with the restoration of democracy in the trade unions and the Soviets. It would be able to, and would have to, restore freedom of Soviet parties. Together with the masses, and at their head, it would carry out a ruthless purgation of the state apparatus. It would abolish ranks and decorations, all kinds of privileges, and would limit inequality in the payment of labor to the life necessities of the economy and the state apparatus. It would give the youth free opportunity to think independently, learn, criticize and grow. It would introduce profound changes in the distribution of the national income in correspondence with the interests and will of the worker and peasant masses. But so far as concerns property relations, the new power would not have to resort to revolutionary measures. It would retain and further develop the experiment of planned economy. After the political revolution – that is, the deposing of the bureaucracy – the proletariat would have to introduce in the economy a series of very important reforms, but not another social revolution.

If – to adopt a second hypothesis – a bourgeois party were to overthrow the ruling Soviet caste, it would find no small number of ready servants among the present bureaucrats, administrators, technicians, directors, party secretaries and privileged upper circles in general. A purgation of the state apparatus would, of course, be necessary in this case too. But a bourgeois restoration would probably have to clean out fewer people than a revolutionary party. The chief task of the new power would be to restore private property in the means of production. First of all, it would be necessary to create conditions for the development of strong farmers from the weak collective farms, and for converting the strong collectives into producers’ cooperatives of the bourgeois type into agricultural stock companies. In the sphere of industry, denationalization would begin with the light industries and those producing food. The planning principle would be converted for the transitional period into a series of compromises between state power and individual “corporations” – potential proprietors, that is, among the Soviet captains of industry, the émigré former proprietors and foreign capitalists. Notwithstanding that the Soviet bureaucracy has gone far toward preparing a bourgeois restoration, the new regime would have to introduce in the matter of forms of property and methods of industry not a reform, but a social revolution.

Let us assume to take a third variant – that neither a revolutionary nor a counterrevolutionary party seizes power. The bureaucracy continues at the head of the state. Even under these conditions social relations will not jell. We cannot count upon the bureaucracy’s peacefully and voluntarily renouncing itself in behalf of socialist equality. If at the present time, notwithstanding the too obvious inconveniences of such an operation, it has considered it possible to introduce ranks and decorations, it must inevitably in future stages seek supports for itself in property relations. One may argue that the big bureaucrat cares little what are the prevailing forms of property, provided only they guarantee him the necessary income. This argument ignores not only the instability of the bureaucrat’s own rights, but also the question of his descendants. The new cult of the family has not fallen out of the clouds. Privileges have only half their worth, if they cannot be transmitted to one’s children. But the right of testament is inseparable from the right of property. It is not enough to be the director of a trust; it is necessary to be a stockholder. The victory of the bureaucracy in this decisive sphere would mean its conversion into a new possessing class. On the other hand, the victory of the proletariat over the bureaucracy would insure a revival of the socialist revolution. The third variant consequently brings us back to the two first, with which, in the interests of clarity and simplicity, we set out.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch09.htm)

[Yehuda Stern]

Do you read what you quote?


Notwithstanding that the Soviet bureaucracy has gone far toward preparing a bourgeois restoration, the new regime would have to introduce in the matter of forms of property and methods of industry not a reform, but a social revolution.

i.e., as much as the Stalinist regime had cleared the path for the capitalists to retake power, they would still have to carry through a social - not a political - revolution. However, Trotsky was wrong not to take into account a fourth variant - that the Stalinist bureaucracy becomes a capitalist ruling class of its own. He did mention the possibility of it becoming a "new" ruling class, but he never took it very seriously:


The historic alternative, carried to the end, is as follows: either the Stalin régime is an abhorrent relapse in the process of transforming bourgeois society into a socialist society, or the Stalin régime is the first stage of a new exploiting society. If the second prognosis proves to be correct, then, of course, the bureaucracy will become a new exploiting class. However onerous the second perspective may be, if the world proletariat should actually prove incapable of fulfilling the mission placed upon it by the course of development, nothing else would remain except openly to recognize that the socialist program based on the internal contradictions of capitalist society, ended as a Utopia. It is self evident that a new “minimum” program would be required for the defense of the interests of the slaves of the totalitarian bureaucratic society. But are there such incontrovertible or even impressive objective data as would compel us today to renounce the prospect of the socialist revolution? That is the whole question.
~The USSR in War



Here's what Trotsky had to say about those who thought that a workers' state could become a capitalist state through changes from the top:


In the last analysis, the theories of reformism, insofar as reformism generally has attained to theory, are always based upon the inability to understand that class antagonisms are profound and irreconcilable; hence, the perspective of a peaceful transformation of capitalism into socialism. The Marxist thesis relating to the catastrophic character of the transfer of power from the hands of one class into the hands of another applies not only to revolutionary periods, when history sweeps madly ahead, but also to the periods of counterrevolution, when society rolls backwards. He who asserts that the Soviet government has been gradually changed from proletarian to bourgeois is only, so to speak, running backwards the film of reformism.
~The Class Nature of the Soviet State


...the fascist state belongs to the [Nazi] bureaucracy only “in some respect” (see quotation above). [...] If Hitler tries to appropriate the state, and by that means, appropriate private property completely and not only “in some respect,” he will bump up against the violent opposition of the capitalists; this would open up great revolution-ary possibilities for the workers. There are, however, ultralefts who apply to the fascist bureaucracy the reasoning [they apply] to the Soviet bureaucracy and who place an equal sign between the fascist and Stalinist regimes [...] their error is in believing that the foundations of society can be changed without revolution or counterrevolution; they unwind the film of reformism in reverse.
~Once Again: The USSR And Its Defence

[Led Zeppelin]

Do you read what you quote?

Do you read what you quote before taking snippets out of context?

Here, let me post that parts which you ignored again:


Let us assume to take a third variant – that neither a revolutionary nor a counterrevolutionary party seizes power. The bureaucracy continues at the head of the state. Even under these conditions social relations will not jell. We cannot count upon the bureaucracy’s peacefully and voluntarily renouncing itself in behalf of socialist equality. If at the present time, notwithstanding the too obvious inconveniences of such an operation, it has considered it possible to introduce ranks and decorations, it must inevitably in future stages seek supports for itself in property relations. One may argue that the big bureaucrat cares little what are the prevailing forms of property, provided only they guarantee him the necessary income. This argument ignores not only the instability of the bureaucrat’s own rights, but also the question of his descendants. The new cult of the family has not fallen out of the clouds. Privileges have only half their worth, if they cannot be transmitted to one’s children. But the right of testament is inseparable from the right of property. It is not enough to be the director of a trust; it is necessary to be a stockholder. The victory of the bureaucracy in this decisive sphere would mean its conversion into a new possessing class.

That is exactly what happened in China and Vietnam.

This is what happened in the USSR:


If – to adopt a second hypothesis – a bourgeois party were to overthrow the ruling Soviet caste, it would find no small number of ready servants among the present bureaucrats, administrators, technicians, directors, party secretaries and privileged upper circles in general. A purgation of the state apparatus would, of course, be necessary in this case too. But a bourgeois restoration would probably have to clean out fewer people than a revolutionary party. The chief task of the new power would be to restore private property in the means of production.

Now he did say that it would happen through a social revolution and not through reform. What the hell do you think the counter-revolution was in the USSR, a tea-party?

That doesn't imply a civil war.

[Yehuda Stern]

That is exactly what happened in China and Vietnam.

This is not what happened in these countries, not 'exactly' and not at all. These countries never had a workers' revolution and were never workers' states. Their peaceful return to market capitalism illustrates the fact that they were capitalist all along.


Now he did say that it would happen through a social revolution and not through reform. What the hell do you think the counter-revolution was in the USSR, a tea-party?

No, I for one think it was a social revolution - the one that took place in the 1930s. You're the one who believes that the Gorbachovist tea party, the legalistic changes from the top, are what 'changed' the USSR back into a capitalist state. Which one of us takes the reformist viewpoint, then?

[Led Zeppelin]

No, I for one think it was a social revolution - the one that took place in the 1930s. You're the one who believes that the Gorbachovist tea party, the legalistic changes from the top, are what 'changed' the USSR back into a capitalist state. Which one of us takes the reformist viewpoint, then?

No social revolution in the property relations took place in the 1930's, if it did I guess Trotsky (and pretty much everyone else) missed it, something that I doubt happened.

And a social revolution in property relations doesn't necessarily end up in a bloodbath, especially not when "it would find no small number of ready servants among the present bureaucrats, administrators, technicians, directors, party secretaries and privileged upper circles in general. A purgation of the state apparatus would, of course, be necessary in this case too. But a bourgeois restoration would probably have to clean out fewer people than a revolutionary party."

If you believe what happened during the collapse of the USSR was a "reform" and not a type of social revolution there's not much hope for you. But I guess if you say that Maoist China was capitalist from the beginning there wasn't much hope to begin with.

As I said though, I don't care what you personally believe, you are irrelevant, just don't attribute things that aren't true to Trotsky.

Even if what you say is right (which it obviously isn't) and the USSR and Maoist China were capitalist, that doesn't change the fact that Trotsky said that it was entirely possible that it could revert back to capitalism without a civil war, so you were wrong.

[Yehuda Stern]

No social revolution in the property relations took place in the 1930's, if it did I guess Trotsky (and pretty much everyone else) missed it, something that I doubt happened.Well, it did happen, and Trotsky perceived it - he called the events of the late 1930s a "preventive civil war." He did not see the full meaning of it, but don't ascribe your blindness to him.


I guess if you say that Maoist China was capitalist from the beginning there wasn't much hope to begin with.No, not much hope for those who think that a workers' state can't arise from a peasant revolution which murders revolutionary workers. Dammit it all.


I don't care what you personally believe, you are irrelevantAnd you're the President of the Socialist Union of the World, right? Do me a favor - take your self-importance and shove it. No one's impressed.


Trotsky said that it was entirely possible that it could revert back to capitalism without a civil war, so you were wrong.

Now, he did not. He said it was "unwinding the film of reformism in reverse." Look it up.

[Led Zeppelin]

Somehow I missed this earlier.

Oh well, let's refute this nonsense:


Well, it did happen, and Trotsky perceived it - he called the events of the late 1930s a "preventive civil war." He did not see the full meaning of it

So basically you are wrong but you don't want to admit it because your bloated ego blinds you to facts.

Nice to know.


And you're the President of the Socialist Union of the World, right? Do me a favor - take your self-importance and shove it. No one's impressed.

That's the problem, I don't pretend that my opinion is relevant, you do.

That makes you a political jester.


Now, he did not. He said it was "unwinding the film of reformism in reverse." Look it up.

I looked it up and found something which will embarrass you because it proves that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about (as if that required further proof), so I'll post it:


If – to adopt a second hypothesis – a bourgeois party were to overthrow the ruling Soviet caste, it would find no small number of ready servants among the present bureaucrats, administrators, technicians, directors, party secretaries and privileged upper circles in general. A purgation of the state apparatus would, of course, be necessary in this case too. But a bourgeois restoration would probably have to clean out fewer people than a revolutionary party.

[...]

Let us assume to take a third variant – that neither a revolutionary nor a counterrevolutionary party seizes power. The bureaucracy continues at the head of the state. Even under these conditions social relations will not jell. We cannot count upon the bureaucracy’s peacefully and voluntarily renouncing itself in behalf of socialist equality. If at the present time, notwithstanding the too obvious inconveniences of such an operation, it has considered it possible to introduce ranks and decorations, it must inevitably in future stages seek supports for itself in property relations. One may argue that the big bureaucrat cares little what are the prevailing forms of property, provided only they guarantee him the necessary income. This argument ignores not only the instability of the bureaucrat’s own rights, but also the question of his descendants. The new cult of the family has not fallen out of the clouds. Privileges have only half their worth, if they cannot be transmitted to one’s children. But the right of testament is inseparable from the right of property. It is not enough to be the director of a trust; it is necessary to be a stockholder. The victory of the bureaucracy in this decisive sphere would mean its conversion into a new possessing class.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch09.htm#ch09-1)

But wait, hold on a second, Revolution Betrayed was written in 1936 and Trotsky used the "unwinding the film of reformism in reverse" phrase in a polemic against a comrade of his that he wrote in 1937! (http://[url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/11/ussr.htm)

Not only that, in that very same polemic Trotsky says: "Without a victorious civil war the bureaucracy cannot give birth to a new ruling class. That was and that remains my thought."

Well well well, it seems like the political jester has caught me in a bind!

Not really, I said this several days ago before I had even read his reply:


Now, I know that Trotsky believed the USSR was a degenerated workers' state up to the time that he died, but that doesn't mean that he was politically an idiot. He didn't rule out any possibilities even though at times during polemics with some people (Shachtmanites) he had to "bend the stick" to prove his point, but in his book dedicated to this subject, Revolution Betrayed, he was very clear on this matter.
Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/converse.php?u=11857&u2=10457)

But how can I prove this without providing a quote from a later date by Trotsky when he was not engaged in a polemic, and where he clearly said that it was possible for a new ruling class to emerge in the USSR without a civil war, and that it was not yet certain what path the further degeneration of the bureaucracy would lead to?

Luckily that is just the thing I have:


The disintegration of capitalism has reached extreme limits, likewise the disintegration of the old ruling class. The further existence of this system is impossible. The productive forces must be organized in accordance with a plan. But who will accomplish this task – the proletariat, or a new ruling class of “commissars” – politicians, administrators and technicians? Historical experience bears witness, in the opinion of certain rationalizers that one cannot entertain hope in the proletariat. The proletariat proved “incapable” of averting the last imperialist war although the material prerequisites for a socialist revolution already existed at that time. The successes of Fascism after the war were once again the consequence of the “incapacity” of the proletariat to lead capitalist society out of the blind alley. The bureaucratization of the Soviet State was in its turn the consequence of the “incapacity” of the proletariat itself to regulate society through the democratic mechanism. The Spanish revolution was strangled by the Fascist and Stalinist bureaucracies before the very eyes of the world proletariat. Finally, last link in this chain is the new imperialist war, the preparation of which took place quite openly, with complete impotence on the part of the world proletariat. If this conception is adopted, that is, if it is acknowledged that the proletariat does not have the forces to accomplish the socialist revolution, then the urgent task of the statification of the productive forces will obviously be accomplished by somebody else. By whom? By a new bureaucracy, which will replace the decayed bourgeoisie as a new ruling class on a world scale. That is how the question is beginning to be posed by those “leftists” who do not rest content with debating over words.

[...]

We have diverged very far from the terminological controversy over the nomenclature of the Soviet state. But let our critics not protest: only by taking the necessary historical perspective can one provide himself with a correct judgment upon such a question as the replacement of one social régime by another. The historic alternative, carried to the end, is as follows: either the Stalin régime is an abhorrent relapse in the process of transforming bourgeois society into a socialist society, or the Stalin régime is the first stage of a new exploiting society. If the second prognosis proves to be correct, then, of course, the bureaucracy will become a new exploiting class.

[...]

The old sociological terminology did not and could not prepare a name for a new social event which is in process of evolution (degeneration) and which has not assumed stable forms. All of us, however, continue to call the Soviet bureaucracy a bureaucracy, not being unmindful of its historical peculiarities. In our opinion this should suffice for the time being.

Scientifically and politically – and not purely terminologically – the question poses itself as follows: does the bureaucracy represent a temporary growth on a social organism or has this growth already become transformed into an historically indispensable organ? Social excrescences can be the product of an “accidental” (i.e. temporary and extraordinary) enmeshing of historical circumstances. A social organ (and such is every class, including an exploiting class) can take shape only as a result of the deeply rooted inner needs of production itself.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/09/ussr-war.htm)

Oh my, Trotsky again reiterated the views he put forth in Revolution Betrayed; It's entirely possible for the bureaucracy to transform into a new possessing class, it's not yet known what the process of degeneration will lead to, so to make any clear-clut claims about it is useless phrasemongering, which is only good for polemics.

Please don't ascribe your blindness to Trotsky, he wasn't a political clown like you are, he was a Marxist.

[Yehuda Stern]

LZ, your childish hysteria may blind some people to the fact that you're just quoting again the same things you quoted a couple of days ago, but not me. Do me a favor and do your name calling and babbling in front of the mirror, so that at least you'll be talking to someone who cares.

[Led Zeppelin]

LZ, your childish hysteria may blind some people to the fact that you're just quoting again the same things you quoted a couple of days ago, but not me.

Put those glasses back on and reread those quotes; you're the blind one, not us.

I have said this many times before but I keep having to repeat it because people like you don't seem to get it; I don't care about what you think, I don't care about who you think you are, objectively you are irrelevant, but if you ascribe ideas to Trotsky (or anyone else for that matter) which weren't his, you are indulging in historical falsification, and I will prove you wrong.

[Yehuda Stern]

LZ, I don't know if you noticed, but the discussion is over. With reformists and centrists I general I don't have a problem discussing anything, but discussion with liars - and especially such blatant ones as yourself - is pointless.

[Led Zeppelin]

LZ, I don't know if you noticed, but the discussion is over.

Then stop trying to get the last word in by posting inane crap ("I'm not a liar, you are!!1"), as Marx said; "Last words are for fools who haven't said enough".

He was referring to people like you.

[Yehuda Stern]

Unlike yourself, who has stopped replying long ago.

We are done.

[KC]

Yehuda, why can't you respond to LZ's argument? Why did you all of a sudden stop attempting to defend your position and just start flaming? Can you not defend your position?

[Yehuda Stern]

I am completely capable of defending my position. It is just that ever since I have realized that LZ cannot but shamelessly lie when defeated in an argument that I have decided to ignore his pleas for attention.

[KC]

How did he lie? It looks to me like he backed up his position with quotes from Trotsky perfectly sufficiently.

[Yehuda Stern]

I meant from arguments before, when he said that I was an SWPer even though I clearly stated that I am not, and he accused of calling Israel socialist because I criticized the CWI's position of two socialist states in Israel / Palestine. I do not waste my time with liars.

[Led Zeppelin]

How did he lie? It looks to me like he backed up his position with quotes from Trotsky perfectly sufficiently.

Don't pay attention to him Zampano, his ego (and stupidity) is too huge to admit being wrong, ever.

And as you have seen, when he is proven wrong he starts behaving like a petulant child; "I'm not the liar, you are!!11!"

It's best to ignore such people.

[KC]

I meant from arguments before, when he said that I was an SWPer even though I clearly stated that I am not, and he accused of calling Israel socialist because I criticized the CWI's position of two socialist states in Israel / Palestine. I do not waste my time with liars.

I don't see what any of that has to do with this discussion at all. From what it looks like to me, you two were engaged in a discussion, LZ backed up his position with Trotsky quotes and then you proceeded to flame and spam.

It looks to me like you stopped actually responding to the content of his argument because you're unable to defend your position against his assertions and the quotes he uses to back them up.

I really would like to see you respond to his arguments, and to see if you can convince me that you are correct, without resorting to flaming and spamming; I don't care what LZ did in other threads.

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, I don't care for what you would like to see. I have decided in principle not to hold any more discussions with this person. If you have arguments of your own, please make them. Otherwise, we're through.

[KC]

Okay, here's my argument:


Somehow I missed this earlier.

Oh well, let's refute this nonsense:



So basically you are wrong but you don't want to admit it because your bloated ego blinds you to facts.

Nice to know.



That's the problem, I don't pretend that my opinion is relevant, you do.

That makes you a political jester.



I looked it up and found something which will embarrass you because it proves that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about (as if that required further proof), so I'll post it:


Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch09.htm#ch09-1)

But wait, hold on a second, Revolution Betrayed was written in 1936 and Trotsky used the "unwinding the film of reformism in reverse" phrase in a polemic against a comrade of his that he wrote in 1937! (http://%5Burl=http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/11/ussr.htm)

Not only that, in that very same polemic Trotsky says: "Without a victorious civil war the bureaucracy cannot give birth to a new ruling class. That was and that remains my thought."

Well well well, it seems like the political jester has caught me in a bind!

Not really, I said this several days ago before I had even read his reply:


Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/converse.php?u=11857&u2=10457)

But how can I prove this without providing a quote from a later date by Trotsky when he was not engaged in a polemic, and where he clearly said that it was possible for a new ruling class to emerge in the USSR without a civil war, and that it was not yet certain what path the further degeneration of the bureaucracy would lead to?

Luckily that is just the thing I have:


Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/09/ussr-war.htm)

Oh my, Trotsky again reiterated the views he put forth in Revolution Betrayed; It's entirely possible for the bureaucracy to transform into a new possessing class, it's not yet known what the process of degeneration will lead to, so to make any clear-clut claims about it is useless phrasemongering, which is only good for polemics.

Please don't ascribe your blindness to Trotsky, he wasn't a political clown like you are, he was a Marxist.

[Yehuda Stern]

You should seriously consider quitting politics and getting a job as a comedian, CWIer. Just let people read your International's position on Israel.

[KC]

So you can't respond, then? I don't understand why it matters who's presenting an argument against you; would you respond if someone else said the exact same thing (as I did above, for example)? It seems to me that you're completely unable to defend your position here.

[Yehuda Stern]

It seems to me that you and Led Zep are both connected to the CWI and you are trying to help him get his pride back after I humiliated him in several discussions.

[Led Zeppelin]

Yehuda, you're the only one being humiliated here (and practically anywhere you post), and Zampano isn't the only member who has noticed your lies and clownish nature by your ignoring of posts that utterly refute and expose your inane claims and "theories" as practical jokes.

Just stop already, remember the last words for fools quote by Marx.

[KC]

It seems to me that you and Led Zep are both connected to the CWI and you are trying to help him get his pride back after I humiliated him in several discussions.

I don't really care about LZ's pride, nor do I care about your claim that you "humiliated" him.

I just want to see you respond to the argument I've presented.

[Yehuda Stern]

I would argue that Trotsky never recognized that it was possible for the bureaucracy to become capitalist without a civil war, even though he recognized that many Stalinists would be on the side of the counterrevolution, and even though he recognized the events of the late 1930s as a "preventive civil war", he failed to see that the civil war has won. We believe that the civil war in the late 1930s was successful, and that the Stalinists turned themselves into a new ruling class following those events, that the USSR was from then on an imperialist state, no better or worse than any other imperialist state.

[BobKKKindle$]

We believe that the civil war in the late 1930s was successful, and that the Stalinists turned themselves into a new ruling class following those events, that the USSR was from then on an imperialist state, no better or worse than any other imperialist state.

The USSR in War (which was published in 1939, following the outbreak of WW2) clearly shows that Trotsky did not regard the USSR as a class society and maintained his original position (as explained in The Revolution Betrayed) that the USSR was a workers state suffering from bureaucratic degeneration. Here are several passages (quoted from the 1939 text) which demonstrate Trotsky's position:

In response to critics who argued that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact negated the USSR's status as a workers state:


Is it possible after the conclusion of the German Soviet Pact to consider the USSR a workers’ state? The future of the Soviet State has again and again aroused discussion in our midst. Small wonder; we have before us the first experiment in the workers’ state in history. Never before and nowhere else has this phenomenon been available for analysis. In the question of the social character of the USSR, mistakes commonly flow, as we have previously stated, from replacing the historical fact by the programmatic norm. Concrete fact departs from the norm. This does not signify, however, that it has overthrown the norm; on the contrary, it has reaffirmed it, from the negative side. The degeneration of the first workers’ state, ascertained and explained by us, has only the more graphically shown what the workers’ state should be, what it could and would be under certain historical conditions.

Trotsky affirms his view that the bureacracy is not a ruling class but merely a stratum:


Our critics have more than once argued that the present Soviet bureaucracy bears very little resemblance to either the bourgeois or labor bureaucracy in capitalist society; that to a far greater degree than fascist bureaucracy it represents a new and much more powerful social formation. This is quite correct and we have never closed our eyes to it. But if we consider the Soviet bureaucracy a “class,” then we are compelled to state immediately that this class does not at all resemble any of those propertied classes known to us in the past: our gain consequently is not great. We frequently call the Soviet bureaucracy a caste, underscoring thereby its shut in character, its arbitrary rule, and the haughtiness of the ruling stratum who consider that their progenitors issued from the divine lips of Brahma whereas the popular masses originated from the grosser portions of his anatomy. But even this definition does not of course possess a strictly scientific character. Its relative superiority lies in this, that the make shift character of the term is clear to everybody, since it would enter nobody’s mind to identify the Moscow oligarchy with the Hindu caste of Brahmins. The old sociological terminology did not and could not prepare a name for a new social event which is in process of evolution (degeneration) and which has not assumed stable forms. All of us, however, continue to call the Soviet bureaucracy a bureaucracy, not being unmindful of its historical peculiarities. In our opinion this should suffice for the time being.

Trotsky calls for the defense of the Soviet Union (if the Soviet Union were a new class society, obviously this would not be the correct position to take, because socialists refuse to side with a national faction of the global bourgeoisie during imperialist wars - this was the main error committed by many parties of the Second International during WW1 - and instead call for the transformation of capitalist war into civil war, directed against the capitalist class)


What do we defend in the USSR? Not that in which it resembles the capitalist countries but precisely that in which it differs from them. In Germany also we advocate an uprising against the ruling bureaucracy, but only in order immediately to overthrow capitalist property. In the USSR the overthrow of the bureaucracy is indispensable for the preservation of state property. Only in this sense do we stand for the defense of the USSR
There is not one among us who doubts that the Soviet workers should defend the state property, not only against the parasitism of the bureaucracy, but also against the tendencies toward private ownership, for example, on the part of the Kolkhoz aristocracy. But after all, foreign policy is the continuation of policy at home. If in domestic policy we correlated defense of the conquests of the October Revolution with irreconcilable struggle against the bureaucracy, then we must do the same thing in foreign policy as well

Trotsky gives a summary of his position, clearly indicating direct continuity with his position in The Revolution Betrayed:


We have no reasons whatsoever at the present time for changing our principled position in relation to the USSR.

[Led Zeppelin]

Good luck trying to get him to respond to that Bob, I already quoted that on the last page (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1186553&postcount=16) and he didn't reply to it, unless you consider "we are done here" and "your a liar!! lol!11!" to be replies.

[Yehuda Stern]

The USSR in War (which was published in 1939, following the outbreak of WW2) clearly shows that Trotsky did not regard the USSR as a class society and maintained his original position (as explained in The Revolution Betrayed) that the USSR was a workers state suffering from bureaucratic degeneration.

I agree that he did not change his position, and I think he was mistaken for that. The argument is about whether or not he believed that the USSR could turn into a capitalist state without a civil war. In our opinion, Trotsky underestimated the victory of the Stalinists in the late 1930s.

But there's something very wrong, in my opinion, with your phrasing: Trotsky, of course, did regard the USSR as a class society, because a workers' state is a class society in every respect - it is just a class society where the ruling class is the working class.