Grandizo Munis, Natalia Sedova and State Capitalism

[Yehuda Stern]

The POUM are the trotskists who sided with the anarchists (CNT-FAI, Friends of Durruti).

No. The POUM and the Fourth broke off relations after Nin refused to work with the Socialist Youth when it broke with the PSOE. Trotsky saw this as forsaking a militant proletarian organization moving to the left to the influence of the Stalinists, who indeed took over the organization within a short time.

The Trotskyists at the time of the revolution, the Bolshevik-Leninists of Spain, were a tiny group (eight people, I think). One of their members, Grandizo Munis, survived the war and took a state capitalist position on the USSR, and was on good terms with Natalia Sedova (Trotsky's wife) after WWII. They were friendly with the Friends of Durrti, though (but not with the official anarchists).

Munis eventually became an ultra-left. There's still an organization which claims his heritage today (though I don't remember the name of it - is it the ICC? I don't think so).

At any rate, I would of course join the BLS.

[Devrim]

One of their members, Grandizo Munis, survived the war and took a state capitalist position on the USSR, and was on good terms with Natalia Sedova (Trotsky's wife) after WWII. They were friendly with the Friends of Durrti, though (but not with the official anarchists).

Munis eventually became an ultra-left. There's still an organization which claims his heritage today (though I don't remember the name of it - is it the ICC? I don't think so).

Natalia also became an 'ultra-left' I believe.

Munis' organisation was called FOR (Forment Ouvrier Revolutionaire). It had sections in Spain, France, Greece, and the USA. It broke up after his death.

Some of his works (mostly from his Trotskyist period) can be found here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/munis/index.htm

He also used to wear awful ties.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

He also used to wear awful ties.

Didn't they all?

I'm not too sure about Natalia Sedova's politics after WWII. I knew she understood that the USSR was not state capitalist, a position I support, and that on a personal level at least she was close to Shachtman. Otherwise, no clue.

I know about the FOR, but there's another ultra-left group operating today which has some historical connection to him. From your post I understand that it's not the ICC.

[Devrim]

I'm not too sure about Natalia Sedova's politics after WWII. I knew she understood that the USSR was not state capitalist, a position I support, and that on a personal level at least she was close to Shachtman. Otherwise, no clue.

I think that she was closer to Munis. I thought that people realised that phrases like 'and was on good terms with Natalia Sedova (Trotsky's wife) after WWII' meant very good terms. Some say while the old man was still alive too.

On the political level, I am not sure what she thought the USSR was, but I always presumed she followed Munis on the state capitalist line. She certainly rejected the idea that the USSR was a workers' state, or that their should be any defence of it.


I know about the FOR, but there's another ultra-left group operating today which has some historical connection to him. From your post I understand that it's not the ICC.

I don't think so. We would know about it if there was.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

Looking at your website again, I realize that the ICC is actually the group I believed to be historically connected to Munis. Am I wrong?

[Devrim]

Yes, the ICC draws its organisational roots from the Italian Fraction. One of their founding members was a guy called Marc Chirak ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Chirik ) who incidentally was a founding member of the Palestinian CP. Others like the old Sparticist, Jan Appel, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Appel ) were also involved.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I'm not too sure about Natalia Sedova's politics after WWII. I knew she understood that the USSR was not state capitalist, a position I support, and that on a personal level at least she was close to Shachtman. Otherwise, no clue.

Yehuda, I think you are wrong here as well. The evidence suggests that Natalia Sedova thought that the USSR was state capitalist:


3. The police terror and the slanders of Stalin were only the political aspects of a struggle to the death against the revolution, led by the whole of the bureaucracy. One therefore cannot expect the re-establishment of the truth in any other way than through the annihlation of the bureaucracy by the working class they have reduced to slaves. I do not have hopes for the Russian party nor for its immitators, who are basically anti-communist. Any de-Stalinization will turn out to be a confidence trick if it does not lead to the seizure of power by the proletariat andthe dissolution of the police, political, military and economic institutions, the basis of the counter-revolution, which established the Stalinist state capitalist regime.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

Sorry, what I meant to write is that she understood that the USSR was not a workers' state anymore, as evidenced by her letter of resignation from the FI. We support the position that the USSR was state capitalist, but not in the Cliff or CLR James sense.

[Devrim]

We support the position that the USSR was state capitalist, but not in the Cliff or CLR James sense.

In what sense do you differ then? I know Cliff theories and I think that they were pretty weak. I am not aware of the details of the Johnson-Forrest tendency's position.

How do both of them contrast to yours?

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

Again, I'd rather not go off topic. In short, Cliff bases his analysis on the (false) assumption that the law of value operated in the USSR due to the pressures of Western imperialism, not due to the class struggle within the USSR. James' theory was similar, and he also theorized that state capitalism is a global tendency, while we hold that the total nationalization of the means of production was possible in the USSR only due to its revolutionary past. If you want I can elaborate in another thread or through personal messages.

[Devrim]

OK, it is on another thread now. Please go on.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

I am not very well acquainted with James' theory - I know only the basics. Broadly speaking, James holds that:

1. The Stalinist is capitalist, but not in the traditional sense, as the law of value functions there (this is false because the law of value also functions in a 'healthy' workers' state).

2. State capitalism is a world tendency - every capitalist nation is being steered toward it.

While this theory seemed to be justified empirically at the time, considering the setting of state capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, etc., and the growth of the state apparatus all over the world, we can see now clearly that only the Bolshevik revolution allowed the USSR to became state capitalist in the full sense of the word. Actually, what marks Stalinism as fundamentally capitalist is that it cannot centralize and plan scientifically.

One would also not be wrong to identify in the Johnson-Forrest theory the theory of ultra-imperialism - that contradictions between capitals can be overcome in a capitalist framework.

(Johnson-Forrest was the tendency in the American SWP led by James' and his colleague Raya Dunayevskaya, named so after their respective psuedonyms)

With Cliff things are different. Though he is clearly influenced by the Johnson-Forrest theory, he took the theory further, concluding that the USSR was no longer a workers' state by 1928, due to the destruction of workers' control, and that the law of value operated in the USSR only due to external imperialist pressures. This theory is problematic on several levels.

First, if changes in property forms decreed from above can, in and of themselves, lead to changes in the class character of a state, then Cliff's theory is merely the "reformism in reverse" that Trotsky spoke of. Also, it cannot account for the "preventive civil war" of the late 30s, which was meant to annihilate the Left Opposition.

We do not conclude that the murder of the Soviet Trotskyists signed the USSR's return to capitalism out of emotional factors: a state becomes a workers' state when the conscious proletariat takes power. This consciousness, not nationalization, is the main characteristic of such a state. (The Bolsheviks did not nationalize the means of production until 1918.)

These problems, in part, laid the theoretical basis for the Cliffites' support for Labour reformism and for their rejection of the vanguard party approach.

Also, if the law of value was brought to the USSR from without, this means that there is no class struggle in the USSR. How then can there be workers or even capitalism? Digging deeper, one finds that Cliff's theory isn't a theory of state capitalism but in fact a 'third system' theory. This also explains why the Cliffites were never able of anticipating the downfall of the Stalinist regime.

These are our main criticisms of Cliff and James. We hold that the USSR, following the murder of the Left Opposition, was a capitalist state in the conventional sense, and that the class struggle in Eastern Europe erupted in the late 80s, but was derailed by its reformist leadership.

[Devrim]

With Cliff things are different. Though he is clearly influenced by the Johnson-Forrest theory, he took the theory further, concluding that the USSR was no longer a workers' state by 1928, due to the destruction of workers' control, and that the law of value operated in the USSR only due to external imperialist pressures. This theory is problematic on several levels.

While you are right here on Cliff's ideas about the Law of Value, I think it is important to emphasis that Cliff believed that the Law of Value didn't operate internally within the USSR.

His theory is certainly problematic though.


We do not conclude that the murder of the Soviet Trotskyists signed the USSR's return to capitalism out of emotional factors: a state becomes a workers' state when the conscious proletariat takes power. This consciousness, not nationalization, is the main characteristic of such a state. (The Bolsheviks did not nationalize the means of production until 1918.)

This is an interesting idea. I have never come across it before.

When would you say that the class concious proletariat in Russia ceased to be in power? Certainly before the Trotskyists were physically exterminated.


2. State capitalism is a world tendency - every capitalist nation is being steered toward it.

While this theory seemed to be justified empirically at the time, considering the setting of state capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, etc., and the growth of the state apparatus all over the world, we can see now clearly that only the Bolshevik revolution allowed the USSR to became state capitalist in the full sense of the word.

We agree with them that it was a universal tendency. We wouldn't agree with your point here.


These are our main criticisms of Cliff and James. We hold that the USSR, following the murder of the Left Opposition, was a capitalist state in the conventional sense,

We would agree that it was a capitalist state in the conventional sense, a state capitalist one.


and that the class struggle in Eastern Europe erupted in the late 80s, but was derailed by its reformist leadership.

What are you referring to here, the 'Velvet revolution', and its like?

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

I think it is important to emphasis that Cliff believed that the Law of Value didn't operate internally within the USSR.

Yes, that's what I meant - that Stalinist capitalism was a response to imperialist pressures and the arms race. You're right on that point. He also believed that production in the USSR focuses on use values, not exchange values.


When would you say that the class concious proletariat in Russia ceased to be in power? Certainly before the Trotskyists were physically exterminated.

Well, what do you mean by 'in power'? The regime ceased being revolutionary somewhere in the early to mid 1920s. The state as a whole stopped being proletarian in the late 1930s. The Stalinists couldn't destroy the workers' state without destroying the conscious proletarian vanguard. Otherwise it's "reformism in reverse" all over again.


We agree with them that it was a universal tendency. We wouldn't agree with your point here.

It was a universal tendency, but Johnson-Forrest said that complete nationalization like in the USSR was possible under western capitalism as well. They thought, similarly to Shachtman, that that was "where the wind blows," that state capitalism was the next stage for capitalism, not an aberration due to Russia's past as a workers' state. History has shown this to be true through the rot and decomposition of Stalinism.


What are you referring to here, the 'Velvet revolution', and its like?


Yes. Even better earlier examples are the revolutions on 1956 in Hungary and 1968 in Czechoslovakia (the "Prague Spring").

[Devrim]

Well, what do you mean by 'in power'? The regime ceased being revolutionary somewhere in the early to mid 1920s. The state as a whole stopped being proletarian in the late 1930s. The Stalinists couldn't destroy the workers' state without destroying the conscious proletarian vanguard. Otherwise it's "reformism in reverse" all over again.

You wrote "a state becomes a workers' state when the conscious proletariat takes power. This consciousness, not nationalization, is the main characteristic of such a state." I was using your term.


It was a universal tendency, but Johnson-Forrest said that complete nationalization like in the USSR was possible under western capitalism as well. They thought, similarly to Shachtman, that that was "where the wind blows," that state capitalism was the next stage for capitalism, not an aberration due to Russia's past as a workers' state. History has shown this to be true through the rot and decomposition of Stalinism.

It depends how you look at it. In some ways this is similar to Cliff's idea. Although he always denied it there is this idea of a higher stage quite clearly in Cliff's work.

We think it was a global tendency, but not that complete nationalisation was the logical result.


Yes. Even better earlier examples are the revolutions on 1956 in Hungary and 1968 in Czechoslovakia (the "Prague Spring").

We would be very uncertain about characterising the events of 1989 as class struggle.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

You wrote "a state becomes a workers' state when the conscious proletariat takes power. This consciousness, not nationalization, is the main characteristic of such a state." I was using your term.Than by my logic, the state becomes a workers' state when the conscious proletariat takes power. The takeover of a totalitarian bureaucracy signals the decay of the revolution, of course, just like the setting up of dual power in a capitalist country signals a revolutionary situation - but change in the class character of the state cannot come, in either case, without a violent overthrow of the ruling class.

About 1989, I must ask, why? I concede that the leaderships were reformist and in many cases even outright chauvinist and reactionary, but had there been revolutionary forces in East Europe at the time, they certainly could intervene and perhaps even win the leaderships of those movements. I hope you are not against characterizing these events as revolutions because they were against the USSR, seeing as we both agree that it was not a workers' state at the time (or for a long time beforehand).

[Devrim]

About 1989, I must ask, why? I concede that the leaderships were reformist and in many cases even outright chauvinist and reactionary, but had there been revolutionary forces in East Europe at the time, they certainly could intervene and perhaps even win the leaderships of those movements. I hope you are not against characterizing these events as revolutions because they were against the USSR, seeing as we both agree that it was not a workers' state at the time (or for a long time beforehand).

No, certainly not because 'they were against the USSR'. The Polish mass strike of 1980-81, for example, was definitely a working class movement. I would say they were cross class movements, where the working class was unable to assert itself.


Than by my logic, the state becomes a workers' state when the conscious proletariat takes power. The takeover of a totalitarian bureaucracy signals the decay of the revolution, of course, just like the setting up of dual power in a capitalist country signals a revolutionary situation - but change in the class character of the state cannot come, in either case, without a violent overthrow of the ruling class.

I am still taking in what you are saying. As I said, it is an analysis I have never come across before, and I am thinking about its implications.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

I would say they were cross class movements, where the working class was unable to assert itself.

Yes, and this is what led to their failure. However, they were certainly aimed against Stalinist imperialism and its satellite regimes, and the bureaucratic ruling classes resting on them. In this sense they were an expression of the workers' will to fight. That the leadership was pro-capitalist and reactionary is a different matter - it expressed the deeply conservative moods of that period.

[Devrim]

This is something that we would completely disagree on then. We don't think that cross class movements have anything to offer the working class.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, the Bolshevik revolution was cross class in the sense that both workers and peasants (among others) participated. It was revolutionary because the workers led it. In every movement that has a revolutionary potential, Marxists must struggle for a proletarian leaderships. This is what we would've done if we had comrades in East Europe at the time.

[Devrim]

It has got a bit off topic. I don't think though that it is analogous to the Russian revolution though. There workers were fighting for their own interests on a class terrain as were the peasants. In Eastern Europe, it was much more of a 'popular' amorphous movement, and definitely not on the terrain of the working class.

I would imagine that this is one of the differences between our currents. You see that the working class must strive for leadership of popular movements like this whereas we see that the working class ends up being drowned in the amorphous mass.

On a personal note, I actually worked there for a time (long after) at a car factory in the Czech Republic. From talking to our comrades there, and general conversations, it confirmed my idea that there really was no class movement at all.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

Movements can only be 'popular' on a shallow appearance level. At the core of every movement stand class interests, sometimes contradictory interests. This movement was no more 'popular' than the Maoist revolution was - that Maoism presented itself as a popular movement doesn't change the fact that it was a peasant movement.

I do not think that you sum up our differences well. It depends on context. Unlike you, we believe that, for example, that revolutionaries must work in the trade unions, since these are united front organizations of the working class. However, we wouldn't strive for the leadership of anti-war organizations, for example, because they express primarily non-proletarian class interests (though this would not stop us from participating in actions organized by said organizations).