What was the USSR? (Aufheben)

[Le Drapeau Noir]

I read this a couple of years ago and found it a very comprehensive and interesting critique of the social and economic relations of the USSR. Since it has been a couple of years, I'm going to re-read. I'd like to hear other's thoughts on this.

What was the USSR?
Towards a Theory of the Deformation of Value
under State Capitalism Part I[1] (http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_6_ussr1.html?200816#[1]B)

Introduction (http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_6_ussr1.html) <==Link

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade Zeitgeist point this value-based work to me actually.

My beef is with its conclusion regarding a "national bourgeois" revolution. Simply put, the whole reasoning behind the Russian revolutions (plural to include 1905) is to separate the two words in "bourgeois-democratic." Georgi Plekhanov, Yulius Martov, and the Menshies clung to vulgar Marxism, while even the true founder of "Marxism," Karl Kautsky, recognized their absurdity:

http://www.fifthinternational.org/index.php?id=168,757,0,0,1,0

So what was the Russian revolution, if not socialist (by virtue of not eliminating wage slavery and capital formation through labour credit)? I think "social-democratic" (yes, this term should be wrested back from the social-fascists to at least give it a proper burial through historical discussions) would be most appropriate.

The initial democratic tasks were carried out not by the bourgeoisie, but by the urban proletariat and the peasantry (and perhaps some sections of the urban petit-bourgeoisie, as well) - hence "social." Some "socializing" tasks were carried out, as well (production to meet demand on a social scale), but could only be carried out through nationalized capital formation (even if the German revolution had been successful).

[Lamanov]

My beef is with its conclusion regarding a "national bourgeois" revolution. Simply put, the whole reasoning behind the Russian revolutions (plural to include 1905) is to separate the two words in "bourgeois-democratic."

Where the hell did you find this, and in conclusion for that matter?

Even if this work somehow mentioned the "character of the Russian Revolution", it's not its primary subject, and I don't even remember reading about it in there, since it would be marginal.

[Devrim]

I read this article, and whilst disagree with some points I thought it was useful. In fact I recommended it to new contacts of our organisation as I thought that it clearly outlined the different theories very well.

Like DJ-TC I have no idea what Jacob is talking about.

Devrim

[Niccolò Rossi]

Where the hell did you find this, and in conclusion for that matter?

Whilst it was not in the conclusion and is really nothing more than a passing reference the article does label the Russian Revolution a "partially successful 'national bourgeois' revolution":


Yet, on the other hand, while the Russian Revolution can be seen as a failed proletarian revolution it can also be seen as a partially successful 'national bourgeois' revolution. A national bourgeois revolution, neither in the sense that it was led by a self-conscious Russian bourgeoisie, nor in the sense that it served to forge a self-conscious Russian bourgeoisie, but in the sense that by sweeping away the Tzarist absolutist state it opened the way for the full development of a Russian capitalism.

Link (http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_9_ussr4.html)


Even if this work somehow mentioned the "character of the Russian Revolution", it's not its primary subject, and I don't even remember reading about it in there, since it would be marginal.

Indeed, matter of fact even if one was to disagree with this label in my opinion it in no way detracts from the article itself.

[Lamanov]

Oh, OK. Well, the article is long. Actually, it can be considered a book; a big one.

I believe main points are: 1.) Bordiga's "road to developed Capitalism" and 2.) explaining how "deformation of value" works. Now, Bordiga's theory is quite weird in the sense that Lenin and the Bolshevik crew was not quite planning to lead Russia into developed capitalism, but to use state capitalism in order to give "socialism" a "material basis".

I'll go off topic a bit.

When we talk about the character of the Russian Revolution we must explain what do we mean by "Revolution": is it the whole process beginning in February 1917 and lasting until Bolshevik rule remained firm in position, or is it the mere moment of "October" when the power was seized by Sovnarkom and VCIK?

If we're talking about the first thing, then the character is, among other things, proletarian, because millions of workers engaged in everyday politics and direct action through their autonomous organs and went about to change society (this social movement was eventually defeated). If we're talking about the latter, well, it's not really a whole "social revolution" (and thus we can not give it a corresponding character), but only one moment in the whole Russian drama, when state power was captured by the Bolshevik party and its allies; this event only talks about the character of Bolshevik strategy and politics.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Indeed, matter of fact even if one was to disagree with this label in my opinion it in no way detracts from the article itself.

I agree. The emphasis in this series of articles is value analysis.

[IronColumn]

DJ-TC,

Do you not think that a one night coup d'etat as opposed to an ongoing process, undertaken with the aid of radical working class organs (La Commune in 1793, Soviets in 1917) is a bourgeois revolution? I personally think it is very clear about what happened in Russia- a party modeling itself on the hierarchical Jacobins, with a philosophy of bourgeois materialism, took power, crushed the organizational expressions of the working class, and instituted state capitalism. I can't understand why anyone would disagree with Aufheben in this matter.

[chegitz guevara]

I think you understand very little about the Bolsheviks. It was not modeled on the Jacobins, but on the mass worker parties in Western Europe, modified to fit the circumstances of Tsarist Russia.

Nor was it a one night coup, but a process that went on for months, getting the masses ready for revolution, winning the elections to the Soviets (the workers government), and finally, arresting the bourgeois government.

[Lamanov]

I think you understand very little about the Bolsheviks. It was not modeled on the Jacobins, but on the mass worker parties in Western Europe, modified to fit the circumstances of Tsarist Russia.

No, it wasn't modeled on mass party line, because it couldn't have been. If you knew anything, you would know that the split between Lenin and Martov came on these lines. Lenin knew he can't build a mass party, but he can build a minority, professional, militant party (What is to be Done?, 1902). Besides that, Lenin had nothing against being called a "jacobin".

When Bolsheviks gained strenght en masse in 1917, they remained a militant, hierarchical machine, moved by instructions of the Central Committee. This logic was simply transferred to the "Workers' State".


Do you not think that a one night coup d'etat as opposed to an ongoing process, undertaken with the aid of radical working class organs (La Commune in 1793, Soviets in 1917) is a bourgeois revolution?

Well, not quite, because, as I've said, October coup d'Etat was a moment in time (it can't be characterized a as "revolution" or a "bourgeois revolution"), and that time was shaped by many processes, one of them being revolutionary, social, proletarian in essence.

Essentially, Bolsheviks were the quickest to exploit the situation, while proletarian movement was slow, due to its immense size and geographical gaps. Bolshevik introduction of decree rule, police methods and state capitalist models defeated this movement.

[black magick hustla]

You can't build communist "mass" parties. The point of a communist organization is reunite militants conscious enough to participate in discourse. It isn't about putting anyone in who can pay dues. Thats strupid, and will only create an organization where some people know and others are just foot soldiers. Not only the bolsheviks were a small organization of militants - all the communist tendencies that split from second international parties were minorities.

[ern]

DJ_TC

I agree with Marmot, it is not a question of building the mass party. This is one of the main lessons of the revolution and the role of the Bolsheviks. They did have the conception of the mass party and that the revolution was about the proletariat overthrowing capitalism and that the party as the most conscious part of the class would be voted into power via the Soviets. Luxemburg and other revolutionaries also had the same conception. It took the very bitter experience of the defeat of the revolution to demonstrate that this was a false conception and a dangerous one.
The idea given of the party as being controlled by the central committee is false. Undoubtedly there were those on the central committe who at times probably wished that it had ultimate and total control of the party as debate raged throughout the party. It was only in 1921 that the Party Congress banned fractions, but this did not mean the banning of debate. Clearly this ban was a great error and did nothing to strengthen the party's ability to deal with the profound crisis and contradictions it was caught up in. However, it is necessary to not equate it with the end of debate, though there were increasing efforts to try and stop debate.
When you say "Essentially, Bolsheviks were the quickest to exploit the situation, while proletarian movement was slow, due to its immense size and geographical gaps. Bolshevik introduction of decree rule, police methods and state capitalist models defeated this movement." you are mixing up a whole process. The Bolsheviks were not separate to the proletarian movement but in 1917 and afterwards for several years the most advanced expressions of this movement. The most advanced parts of the proletariat belonged to the Party and in many case waged a determined struggle to the very end to stop the party being engulfed by opportunism and murdered by Stalinism. Obviously, as they became caught up in the contradiction of the party identifying itself with the state and equating its power with that of the proletariat the Bolsheviks did take on more and more state functions and lose sight of their real role. But, within the party there was also a determined struggle against this aborption into the state.
The Bolsheviks party was an expression of the proletariat and its death expressed the death of the revolution. It actions as it became more and more engulfed in the state certainly contributed to the weakening of the revolution, but they can not be seen as the main cause. The main cause was the isolation of the revolution. Just as Lenin warned from the very beginning.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem with soviets is that they were proxies for political parties (http://www.revleft.com/vb/kautsky-v-lenin-t67203/index2.html), Bolsheviks or otherwise. The problem with the "mass party" model is that it wasn't mass enough:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/road-power-and-t83963/index.html

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The problem with soviets is that they were proxies for political parties (http://www.revleft.com/vb/kautsky-v-lenin-t67203/index2.html), Bolsheviks or otherwise. The problem with the "mass party" model is that it wasn't mass enough:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/road-power-and-t83963/index.html

I concur.

[chegitz guevara]

I would argue that it was socialist, bit it was socialist like Nazi Germany was capitalist.

[chegitz guevara]

No, it wasn't modeled on mass party line, because it couldn't have been. If you knew anything, you would know that the split between Lenin and Martov came on these lines. Lenin knew he can't build a mass party, but he can build a minority, professional, militant party (What is to be Done?, 1902). Besides that, Lenin had nothing against being called a "jacobin".

Yes, we know what everyone's been taught about the revolution, and the Bolsheviks, and Lenin. Now it's time to throw that shit away and do some research. Lenin's writings from th early 1890s, up through the seizure of power, all pointed towards the German SPD as the model for the RSDLP. The evidence, once you actually bother to read it, and not let Soviet bureaucrats or anti-communists tell you what it is, it is overwhemling. Lenin was a Kautskyite.


When Bolsheviks gained strenght en masse in 1917, they remained a militant, hierarchical machine, moved by instructions of the Central Committee. This logic was simply transferred to the "Workers' State".Yes, it was such a hierarchical machine that Lenin was outvoted when he said the Bolsheviks needed to be organizing fore revolution, ala the April Thesis. And he was outvoted on expelling Zinoviev and Kamenev. And it was so hierarchical that when Lenin went outside the party press to make his case, they expelled him for lack of discipline . . . oh, right, they didn't do that. In fact, the hierarchical Bolsheviks only expelled one leader in their history, Bogdanov, who had been stealing money from the party. Even the mushy, mutlitendency swamp that is the SPUSA has expelled more of its leaders than that, in just the last two years.

In other words, you don't know jack. Read Lars Lih's Lenin Rediscovered and learn something.

[chegitz guevara]

You can't build communist "mass" parties. The point of a communist organization is reunite militants conscious enough to participate in discourse. It isn't about putting anyone in who can pay dues. Thats strupid, and will only create an organization where some people know and others are just foot soldiers. Not only the bolsheviks were a small organization of militants - all the communist tendencies that split from second international parties were minorities.

The Communists that split from the Socialist Party were the majority. IIRC, the same is the case for the Socialist Party of Italy. It's also true of the Bolsheviks, whose very name is Majority-ite.

The fact is, Lenin use the history and example of the SPD as what was possible for the RSDLP. He consistently pointed to the fact that it was an illegal party for twenty years that grew under Bismarck's repressive state apparatus, and that Russians could do the same, even with the even more viscious Tsarist state on their heads. They did have to adapt to certain features of Russia, but nonetheless, Lenin was the consumate Kautsky-ite. When Kautsky betrayed his own principles, Lenin used old Kautsky to argue against new Kautsky. Hence the renegade Kautsky.

[Lamanov]

The idea given of the party as being controlled by the central committee is false. Undoubtedly there were those on the central committe who at times probably wished that it had ultimate and total control of the party as debate raged throughout the party. It was only in 1921 that the Party Congress banned fractions, but this did not mean the banning of debate.

Oh, come on. First of all, Central Committee never expressed the wishes of the majority of party members, especially rank and file. So much desent in the party ranks and opposing tendencies only proves this fact. Who cares about banning fractions in 1921 when up to that moment so many compromising things happened, including Kronstadt?


The Bolsheviks were not separate to the proletarian movement but in 1917 and afterwards for several years the most advanced expressions of this movement.

No, the factory committees were the most advanced expression of the proletarian movement. The Bolsheviks were not "separate" from the movement, that would be illogical to claim, because they took part in every proletarian activity (in those committees as well), but they were a minority, organized on specific, political lines, in a hierarchic manner. Their goals did not reflect the needs of the proletarian movement; but their goals did integrate many features of popular demand, albeit twisted (like "workers' control" twisted in a way to fit Lenin's schemes).

[Lamanov]

Yes, we know what everyone's been taught about the revolution, and the Bolsheviks, and Lenin. Now it's time to throw that shit away and do some research. Lenin's writings from th early 1890s, up through the seizure of power, all pointed towards the German SPD as the model for the RSDLP. The evidence, once you actually bother to read it, and not let Soviet bureaucrats or anti-communists tell you what it is, it is overwhemling. Lenin was a Kautskyite.

Calm the fuck down. No matter how much he respected SPD, he still had to adjust this model to Russian conditions. I already said what's relevant in my post before yours.


Yes, it was such a hierarchical machine that Lenin was outvoted when he said the Bolsheviks needed to be organizing fore revolution, ala the April Thesis. And he was outvoted on expelling Zinoviev and Kamenev. And it was so hierarchical that when Lenin went outside the party press to make his case, they expelled him for lack of discipline . . .

Obviously, I said nothing about quarrels inside the Central Committee. Whatever you pull out on these internal relations, the Party remains subordinate to the Central Committee and the Politburo. Besides, his April Theses did pass, and Zinoviev and Kamenev did come back to his line.


In other words, you don't know jack. Read Lars Lih's Lenin Rediscovered and learn something.

Fuck off.

[chegitz guevara]

Calm the fuck down. No matter how much he respected SPD, he still had to adjust this model to Russian conditions. I already said what's relevant in my post before yours.

If I were any calmer, I'd be in a coma. And while we agree that Lenin adjusted the SPD model to Russian conditions, that doesn't mean he invented an entirely new methodology. The RSDLP was no more subordinated to the central committee than the SPD was to its own. Only by extrapolating from the Russian Revolution backwards on to a misreading of What is to Be Done? can you torture Lenin into saying what you claim.

If WitBD? argues what you claim, how are we to deal with the fact that everything Lenin wrote before and after that book repudiates the very model you claim he made? The fact is, we can only hold to the top-down model of Leninism if we ignore everything else he ever wrote and how Lenin acted in all the years leading up to the revolution.


Obviously, I said nothing about quarrels inside the Central Committee. Whatever you pull out on these internal relations, the Party remains subordinate to the Central Committee and the Politburo.So you claim, but where's your proof? Show us how in 1907, the party was subordinate to the CC? Show is again in 1904 and 1909 and 1913.


Besides, his April Theses did pass, and Zinoviev and Kamenev did come back to his line.His Theses passed eventually, but he had to argue, and win over comrades to his point of view, including by arguing his case outside the party press. By doing so, he was arguing, not merely to the Bolshevik rank and file, but to those who weren't members of the party. The party put pressure on the leadership. THe adoption of his theses was a bottom up process.

And yes, Z and K did come back to his line. So? That doesn't mitigate my point, which was that on many occasions, the "dictator" was outvoted. Where is the top down model?


Fuck off.Brilliant! Thus my argument is refuted. I need to remember that.

[ern]

DJ-TC

Let not reduce this discussion to swearing at each other.
I am not sure what you are saying about the central committee: is it the existence of the CC that you object to or its activity? The CC was elected at each congress of the party.
I also do not understand what you are saying about so much decent in the party proving your point. Are you saying that the indication of a healthy party or organization is the lack of decent and discussion?
For us (the ICC) this decent and discussion in the party expressed the depth of its proletarian nature. The Bolsheviks were criticized by the opportunists for the fact that there was a permanent process of discussion, disagreement and decent within the Bolsheviks. It was Stalin who introduced total silence in the party and overcame the problem of the struggle to defend the party against it integration into the state.
Lenin certainly did see Kautsky as a major figure and influence (as did Rosa initially) and it did take 1914 to prove to him that Kautsky had become a renegade, but once he understood this his critique of his positions were blistering and help to clarify the whole international movements understanding of the stakes of the period.
The April Theses were adopted DESPITE the objection of the CC, not becaue of it. Lenin went to the party and patiently discussed and defended his position with the profound conviction that the rank and file would come around to his position.
Lenin would agree with you about the factory committees, at one point he felt that the factory committees where the vangaurd of the revolution and not the Soviets. The problem with factory committees was that they did not have the broad unitary function as the Soviets. That said the discusstion that took place in the committees and about their role are extremely important for allowing us to draw lessons for the future.
Lenin also had to threaten to resign from the CC in order to push it to accept the need to call for the insurrection in Oct 1917.

[Lamanov]

The CC was elected at each congress of the party.

Or it was simply confirmed by congress delegates (that was usual for majority of the members, unless there was an expansion), while party remained under decisions of the CC, and members bond by party discipline. (I'm talking about 1917 and after.) No one says there were no discussions, but the fact that if you put together most of members in their participation in one or other "opposition", or in one or other endeavor not fully supported by CC, or the whole descent, shows that CC can't be seen as an expression of rank and file will (or its politics, at least).


Lenin would agree with you about the factory committees, at one point he felt that the factory committees where the vangaurd of the revolution and not the Soviets.

I don't think so. He might have said this or that at a given time, but his real attitude towards factory committees, and the role of the workers in industry, was shown from day one in power. Besides, you claim that Bolsheviks were the most progressive expression of the movement. How can a party that pushed for "New Course" and limited workers' control be considered the "most progressive section" of the proletarian movement? (It's a rhetorical question: it really can't.)


If WitBD? argues what you claim, how are we to deal with the fact that everything Lenin wrote before and after that book repudiates the very model you claim he made? The fact is, we can only hold to the top-down model of Leninism if we ignore everything else he ever wrote and how Lenin acted in all the years leading up to the revolution.

I'm not misreading WitBD; you're obviously pulling stuff out of my posts that aren't there. Maybe you're trying to argue with me on ideological grounds, while you anticipate what I might say, given our ideological differences.


The April Theses were adopted DESPITE the objection of the CC, not becaue of it. Lenin went to the party and patiently discussed and defended his position with the profound conviction that the rank and file would come around to his position.


His Theses passed eventually, but he had to argue, and win over comrades to his point of view, including by arguing his case outside the party press. By doing so, he was arguing, not merely to the Bolshevik rank and file, but to those who weren't members of the party. The party put pressure on the leadership. THe adoption of his theses was a bottom up process.

The party was split prior to April Theses. There already was a left wing that wanted "Power to the Soviets" (Molotov-Scriabin). The CC was held by Stalin and Kamenev in the middle - it wasn't neither against nor for any particular policy, it simply levitated until Lenin arrived. Once he used one half for acquiring a new line, CC adopted itself to it, and party discipline did the rest in regards to the party membership.


And yes, Z and K did come back to his line. So? That doesn't mitigate my point, which was that on many occasions, the "dictator" was outvoted. Where is the top down model?

He argued for acceptance by threats of expulsion. In this period he had no specific tools in order to force this acceptance, but it very well suggests the model of relationship within the party, and stays in tune with what happened afterwords.


Brilliant! Thus my argument is refuted. I need to remember that.

"You don't know jack" isn't an argument, and it's not the case, either.

[ern]

DJ-TC

I think we should step back a bit and remember that we are discussing a revolution where the working class through the Soviets had overthrown the ruling class and had began the greatest adventure in human history: the conscious assault on capitalism and effort to build socialism. The working class via their soviets had given the Bolshiviks the majority within the new structures of power. Thus the working class and Bolsheviks were faced with an unprecedented situation. But one thing is clear the bourgeoisie had been replaced by the proletariat.
Your vision of the Bolshevik party appears to be of a CC controlling and manipulating an unthinking mass. The CC was elected at the Congress by delegates elected via the structure of the party. These structures discussed the various reports before the congress. And lets faced it voting for the CC meant defending the programm of the party, not this or that personality, but those who could best defend the program, unless you think the membership were simply sheep (which is precisely what Stalin tried to turn them into). Trotsky said it was the duty of every member of the party to come to their own opinion of the policies and positions of the party and not to simply follow this or that fraction, personality. Your vision of the party also does not bear comparison to the actual life of the party, including the CC, where there was constant discussion.
On the factory committes, the Bolsheviks did not oppose them from day one, they called for their formation. The point to remember is that these again were unprecedented organisations of the class and thus there was no clear understanding of their role in the revolution. Within the factory committees and their regular congresses there was a constant discussion about what their role was, what was the best way of organising, what was the relationship to the Bolsheviks, unions. I recommend Building Socialism in Bolshevik Russia: ideology and industrial organisation. T Remington, which is extremely interesting about the whole issue of the factory committees.
There is more that I want to reply to but I shall do that tomorrow.

[ComradeRed]

I think we should step back a bit and remember that we are discussing a revolution where the working class through the Soviets had overthrown the ruling class and had began the greatest adventure in human history: the conscious assault on capitalism and effort to build socialism. The working class via their soviets had given the Bolshiviks the majority within the new structures of power. Thus the working class and Bolsheviks were faced with an unprecedented situation. But one thing is clear the bourgeoisie had been replaced by the proletariat. There are several problems with this naive idealistic point of view.

First it kind of ignores the notion of material conditions determining social being...it is idealistic to assert that from feudalism, somehow the peasantry would "build socialism". (Remember, 80 to 85% of the Russian population was peasantry...)

Second, this raises serious questions due to documents that state things like workers' committees "may not intervene directly in the running of the plant or endeavour in any way to replace plant administration; they shall by all means help to secure one-man management, increase production, plant development, and, thereby, improvement of the material conditions of the working class" (from All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in Resolutions and Decisions of the Congresses, Conferences and Plenums of the Central Committee).

Or perhaps better yet this passage from a Soviet economics textbook: "One-man management the most important principle of the organisation of socialist economy" (from L. Gintzburg and E. Pashukanis, [i]Course of Soviet Economic Law).

In 1923, about 30% of the factory managers were in the Party. In 1925, 3.7% of the members of the managing boards of trusts, 81.5% of those on the boards of syndicates, and 95% of the directors of large enterprises were Party members (from Bubonav The All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)).

This is supposed to be a "workers' democracy"? :lol:


Your vision of the Bolshevik party appears to be of a CC controlling and manipulating an unthinking mass. The CC was elected at the Congress by delegates elected via the structure of the party. These structures discussed the various reports before the congress. Uh well lets see for a moment...

In light of the above statistics, that doesn't seem too far from the truth of the matter.

[black magick hustla]

comradered, I think the problem with your really odd version of sci-fi communism is that you analyze capitalism as a national system rather than an international one. By 1914 capitalism had already consolidated itself as an imperialist epoch and a world system - making every corner of the earth integrated to world capital in one way or the other. The world in 1917 was prepared for world revolution, and therefore it meant that russia, as part of the world system, had the capacity of proletarian revolution. of course, by 1921 the revolution had already degenerated due to the failure of world revolution, particularly in germany and italy, and imperialist encirclment.

However in 1917, the bolshevik party was where revolutionary workers gathered. This not only included Stalin and Trotsky, but "ultra-lefts" like Myasnikov and early Bukharin.

"Stageism" belongs to mensheviks and maoists, not revolutionary communists.

[ComradeRed]

comradered, I think the problem with your really odd version of sci-fi communism is that you analyze capitalism as a national system rather than an international one. Understandable if one is ignorant about the material conditions for the genesis of the capitalist mode of production.

Chapters 13 and 14 of Capital, vol. I, deals with this matter in relative thorough detail, so I won't divulge into it here.

As per my reasoning behind my "analysis of capitalism", I limit Russia to its material circumstances and its conditions at the time...so it is an intentionally limited analysis of the sort of capitalism unique to Russia.

...which is why I'm talking about it in a thread on Russia!


By 1914 capitalism had already consolidated itself as an imperialist epoch and a world system - making every corner of the earth integrated to world capital in one way or the other. Uh you have an inconsistent proposition here.

If capitalism "had already consolidated itself as an imperialist epoch and a world system", then it would be considerably more entrenched than merely "making it" to "every corner of the earth" -- as though it barely came first in a sprint.

Would you say that capitalism is more entrenched now than it was in 1917? Considering the circumstances, I would venture so.

There really wasn't much of a world market in 1917 compared to the world market we have now.

You do realize the statistics about Russia in comparison to other places in the world, as far as industrialization is concerned, right? (They were dead last)

Perhaps the Ottoman empire was industrialized? Or the Balkans? Or Afghanistan? China? These places were still fairly "proto-capitalist" or even "pre-capitalist" (especially in comparison to where they are [now] relative to the world today).

But somehow I should be enticed to believe this appeal that "somehow" capitalism qualified as being "consolidated" (an ambiguous situation in and of itself!)...I think instead I'll believe empirical evidence indicating that capitalism was not as fully developed as you would like.


The world in 1917 was prepared for world revolution, and therefore it meant that russia, as part of the world system, had the capacity of proletarian revolution. Kind of choppy reasoning here...

Let's see:

P1) Capitalism "qualified" (somehow) to be "consolidated".

P2) ???

C) The world was ready for a revolution, and it logically must be in Russia.

Well, ignoring the obvious problem I pointed out earlier that 85% of the Russian population were peasants thus a "worker revolution" isn't feasible (no more so than a worker revolution in 1789 France; both situations had nearly identical class composition of society), there are other problems with this line of reasoning.

For starters, it doesn't explain anything that happened after a certain date (people change it as they please between 1921, 1919, 1935, or whatever arbitrary date they please) without invoking a great deal of idealism.

Of course, apparently some dialecticians reject the notion of "causality" and "science" and "empiricism" :lol: You may not be one of them, however...

Looking at the state as an organ of class rule, why is it that the majority of the party evolved into nothing more than factory managers? Why is it statistically this appears to be "inherited" by their children?

The sheepish response involving "castes" (an ambiguous term without any real materialistic foundations) is rather unsatisfactory.

There is no explanation for this seeming "capitalistic" nature of the Soviet empire other than crying out betrayal in the revolution...the epitome of idealistic excuses!


of course, by 1921 the revolution had already degenerated due to the failure of world revolution, particularly in germany and italy, and imperialist encirclment. So obviously the world was self-evidently unready for a "world wide revolution".

Assume for contradiction it were otherwise...then why didn't it turn out otherwise?

Possibly because the material conditions were not ripe for such a situation?

No, it's "obviously" because the "revolution had already degenerated" and to back up this notion, we'll provide zero pieces of evidence.

Oh, how convincing...I hear such arguments from Libertarians asserting "Capitalism is the best thing there ever will be!"

[black magick hustla]

Understandable if one is ignorant about the material conditions for the genesis of the capitalist mode of production.

This is not an argument.


As per my reasoning behind my "analysis of capitalism", I limit Russia to its material circumstances and its conditions at the time...so it is an intentionally limited analysis of the sort of capitalism unique to Russia.
Obviously. You didn't get what I was saying though. You may be analyzing russia, but you analyze it under the premise that the world system is made up of different national capitalisms (Russia being one of them for you), rather than analyzing it as what is - a world system.





If capitalism "had already consolidated itself as an imperialist epoch and a world system", then it would be considerably more entrenched than merely "making it" to "every corner of the earth" -- as though it barely came first in a sprint.

I dont get what do you mean by this. Can you be more specific?




Would you say that capitalism is more entrenched now than it was in 1917? Considering the circumstances, I would venture so.

This is not what I said. I said capitalism reached its epoch of imperialism and consolidated itself as a world system, not that it is "entrenched". I mean that by this age, every economy was linked to the market in one way or the other. In 1917 there where certainly industrial cities like Petrograd that were directly connected to the world economy.


There really wasn't much of a world market in 1917 compared to the world market we have now.

There was a big enough world market to launch the whole world into an inter-imperialist war (WWI).


You do realize the statistics about Russia in comparison to other places in the world, as far as industrialization is concerned, right?

Yes.


Perhaps the Ottoman empire was industrialized? Or the Balkans? Or Afghanistan? China? These places were still fairly "proto-capitalist" or even "pre-capitalist" (especially in comparison to where they are [now] relative to the world today).

Its not a question which areas of the world where "industralized". Its a question of states linked to the world market. Certainly, all of them where linked to it in one way or the other.


But somehow I should be enticed to believe this appeal that "somehow" capitalism qualified as being "consolidated" (an ambiguous situation in and of itself!)...I think instead I'll believe empirical evidence indicating that capitalism was not as fully developed as you would like.

Everything I said is backed on empirical observations. It depends on what you mean by "developed". Capitalism and technology are interconnected, but they aren't sinonymous.



Capitalism "qualified" (somehow) to be "consolidated".
I said it consoldiated itself as imperialism. Not that it just "consolidated". It entered its decadent phase, where no faction of the bourgeosie is progressive anymore. The bourgeosie was responsable for the dozens of millions of deaths in WWI, WWII. The national bourgeosie of africa fought against "colonialism" only to establish decadent kleptocratic states. Different factions of the bourgeosie were responsable for the genocides in Africa and the balkans. There have been massacres beyond what the ruling class in the 19th century could ever dream. There is plenty of evidence that capitalism is not progressive anymore, whether in the US or in Nepal.



C) The world was ready for a revolution, and it logically must be in Russia.

It doesn't means that the world will experience revolution. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your mindset, people, who are the agents of history, are too complex to be explianed in terms of deterministic princples. We can look at tendencies and make some judgement, but you can't have a controlled experiment on history.


Well, ignoring the obvious problem I pointed out earlier that 85% of the Russian population were peasants thus a "worker revolution" isn't feasible (no more so than a worker revolution in 1789 France; both situations had nearly identical class composition of society), there are other problems with this line of reasoning.

They didn't have identical class composition. I doubt that in 1789 there where industrial cities like Petrograd. There was also barely a world market.





I do pretty good on my science classes and I am not a dialectician.

[Quote]Looking at the state as an organ of class rule, why is it that the majority of the party evolved into nothing more than factory managers? Why is it statistically this appears to be "inherited" by their children?
I already explianed that by 1921 russia wasn't a workers' state.


The sheepish response involving "castes" (an ambiguous term without any real materialistic foundations) is rather unsatisfactory.

There is no explanation for this seeming "capitalistic" nature of the Soviet empire other than crying out betrayal in the revolution...the epitome of idealistic excuses!

That is because there was never socialism in Russia. I never said there was; socialism can only be achieved by world revolution. In 1917 there was some sort of workers' controlled capitalism. They where never able to leap to a transition though.


So obviously the world was self-evidently unready for a "world wide revolution".
It was. Since 1914 the world is ready for revolution. it doesn't means it will happen though. it just means that the bourgeoisie is not progressive anymore.



Possibly because the material conditions were not ripe for such a situation?

You can't turn history into a giant equation. To pretend otherwise is idealism, because scientists are still unable to predict with 100 percent accuracy the decisions of one person, pretending you can do with exactitude for millions is wishful thinking.


No, it's "obviously" because the "revolution had already degenerated" and to back up this notion, we'll provide zero pieces of evidence.

Oh, how convincing...I hear such arguments from Libertarians asserting "Capitalism is the best thing there ever will be!"

I already posted plenty of evidence.

[ern]

ComradeRed

Fully agree with marmot's above post. I would add that the arguments you put forwards against Russia being ready for a revolution are the same as those used by the Mensheviks, Kautsky and then unfortunately by some of the Council Communists. Russia, did have a massive peasantry etc but it also had a highly developed capitalist economy and was fully integrated into the world market. The question is not whether Russia was ready or not for revolution, but whether capitalism had reached a stage where it was no-longer an raising social system? The slaughter of WW1 and the world revolutioinary wave concretely answered this question. The proletariat was defeated, yes, but for a couple of years the world ruling class was faced with its class brothers being overthrown in Russia and at the same time, its brothers in Germany being faced with revolutionary struggles. The revolutionary proletariat in Russia were not on their own, but rather the spearhead of an international revolutionary movement.

[ComradeRed]

This is not an argument. Nor is it intended to be one, as it's called (in the vernecular) an "explanation".


Obviously. You didn't get what I was saying though. You may be analyzing russia, but you analyze it under the premise that the world system is made up of different national capitalisms (Russia being one of them for you), rather than analyzing it as what is - a world system. Not quite, but close (well not really).

The premise I have is that capitalist powers compete for resources.

This is reasonable, if one observes history.

From such a standpoint, one is not surprised that Russian capitalism developed in a novel way that is still characteristic of how capitalism always develops.

That's the flaw with your argument here, since I appeal to how capitalism as a system develops as opposed to national tendencies.

We can see by inspection of the dynamics of local material circumstances what sort of changes are happening...then we can cross examine the dynamics of local material circumstances with other bourgeois revolutions and come to a conclusion.

Is it unique to locality? No, it is not geographic locality that determines everything, but the relative motion of the dynamics being inspected. In other words, how shit changes tells the story.


I dont get what do you mean by this. Can you be more specific? The world in c. 1914 was in an interesting predicament (yes, in c. 1914).

The "imperialist powers" were trying to acquire as many regions as possible, not so much as trying to industrialize them thoroughly.

What do I mean by this?

You admitted that regions such as the Ottoman empire, etc. were by far and large unindustrialized. This is correct, so the process of industrializing such regions would do what for capitalism?

Well, that would allow for the expansion of capital, etc. etc. etc., as Marx describes in the Law of accumulation.

But I'm supposed to believe that, given the "imperialist powers" gerrymandered the world into colonies, capitalism was "consolidated"? When there is room for capital to expand, capitalism has consolidated?

I don't really think this is so...


This is not what I said. I said capitalism reached its epoch of imperialism and consolidated itself as a world system, not that it is "entrenched". I mean that by this age, every economy was linked to the market in one way or the other. In 1917 there where certainly industrial cities like Petrograd that were directly connected to the world economy. There are several main flaws with this argument.

First consider the fact that only the Western fringe of the Russian empire was connected to the world market. The vast majority of the Russian economy was based off of agrarian production instead of industrial production.

Second, this doesn't really constitute "consolidating" power insomuch as finding nowhere else to expand.

If capitalism consolidated its recent gains, the process of industrialization would be much further along in the so-called "developing countries".


There was a big enough world market to launch the whole world into an inter-imperialist war (WWI). The circumstances of the war was that there were no other places to expand.

In a sense, one could posit that the war was the beginning of consolidation of power since a war would require increased production of goods.


Its[sic] not a question which areas of the world where "industralized". Its a question of states linked to the world market. Certainly, all of them where linked to it in one way or the other. The strength of the link is what is in question.

You assert that because such a link, regardless of how weak and superficial it is, suffices for world revolution.

This is obviously an incorrect assertion given the current circumstances; post factum we can state such a proposition would be incorrect to hold.

Perhaps Marx was correct in stating the conditions for a revolution is having an advanced capitalist system, but since capitalism can still expand into other less industrialized regions of the world it is not yet fully developed.


Everything I said is backed on empirical observations. Yet you provide none, which leaves me wondering about the strength of such propositions...

It is like giving a theorem without a proof: it's worthless!


It depends on what you mean by "developed". Capitalism and technology are interconnected, but they aren't sinonymous[sic]. No but as long as there are less industrialized regions, capitalism has the opportunity to grow by industrializing said regions.


I said it consoldiated itself as imperialism.

That doesn't change the fact that this proposition is ambiguous.

First you give no criteria for what this would look like. I assume you'll refer me to Lenin, and assert that capitalism's character has "totally changed completely".

That has no intuitive, logical, or empirical appeal since the economics layed down by Marx is empirically observable in the economic statistics of countries today!

So I'm supposed to believe that capitalism, what, "quickly changed, then equally as quickly changed back"? I don't think so...

Second, there is no reasoning why this is so.

Capitalism consolidated itself as imperialism...as though all the capitalists got together at a convention and said "Hey, we're imperialists now!"

It further makes no sense to assert that capitalism "consolidated itself" on two immediate objections: 1) that's a misuse of the word "consolidated", 2) a system would consolidate its recent gains...not itself.


It doesn't means that the world will experience revolution. Not the point, the point is that you gave absolutely no reasoning here except an assertion that "The world was ready for a revolution". Note that where is left unspecified.

In fact, you don't appear to mind that logical premises are missing from your argument.

Or the fact that this is an idealistic proposition.

"The material conditions of 1917 Russia were such that a revolution could occur" is a more precise proposition.

One could go a step further and elaborate on the material conditions of Russia, observe that it is barely post-feudal but pre-capitalist.

What can one conclude from a materialistic point of view? Well, these circumstances are precisely those outlined in chapters 13 and 14 of Capital, vol I.

It would be a good conjecture that Russia would logically industrialize in a similar way.

Sort of like in ecology, given a certain species put in an environment change will evolve in a certain way.


Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your mindset, people, who are the agents of history, are too complex to be explianed in terms of deterministic princples. We can look at tendencies and make some judgement, but you can't have a controlled experiment on history. Just as one cannot have a controlled experiment in ecology, so abandon all hope ye who enter here, right?

Well, not quite...no one (not even, in Marx's words, "musicians of the future") can do whatever they want free of constraints.

As Marx says in the Eigteenth Brumaire: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."

We can use a set of axioms to generate a set of possible logical options...that's kind of the whole point of Marx's bag of tools.


They didn't have identical class composition. Around 80-85% of 1789 France were peasantry. That leaves about 12-17% of the third estate to be either manufacture workers (in the sense of Marx's use in Chapter 15 of Capital, vol I) or Burghers.

Remarkable, no?


I doubt that in 1789 there where[sic] industrial cities like Petrograd. There was also barely a world market. If you look at the material conditions for the Russian revolution, the world market played little to no role.

You keep shouting "World market! World market!" But you keep failing to do anything beyond that.

I suspect you are going to assert that it is somehow related to a workers' revolution in Russia, despite the glaringly obvious fact that I keep reiterating the workers were a vast minority.

But I'm supposed to ignore this and gleefully believe that it was a workers' revolution?

Now if you look at 1789 France, the material conditions were basically a decaying feudalism dealing with an emerging bourgeoisie.

I'm supposed to make believe that this is nothing like 1917 Russia :lol:

If I were an idealist, I'd take you up on that. Sadly, I'm not, so I won't.


I do pretty good on my science classes and I am not a dialectician. This is a jab at Trivas7 among other dialecticians.

But based off of your lack of empirical evidence, I would be surprised with your capabilities as a scientist.


That is because there was never socialism in Russia. I never said there was; socialism can only be achieved by world revolution. In 1917 there was some sort of workers' controlled capitalism. They where never able to leap to a transition though. You don't seem to grasp this simple problem that prior to the 1917 revolutions Russia was post-feudal and pre-capitalist...so how can it magically become socialist?

You then assert "Ah stageism is idealism!"

But the plain fact of the matter is that the circumstances of 1917 Russia were ideal for a bourgeois revolution when we examine other bourgeois revolutions.

So why should I believe that it's any different?

Further, the consequences of the revolution are precisely the rise of a capitalist system and industrialization. Why should one assert "the revolution was betrayed!" as the correct response?

You don't answer either of these points, but merely reiterate your assertions.


It was. Since 1914 the world is ready for revolution. Repeating a point doesn't make it true.

Russia was ready for a revolution, now give a rigorous argument for the rest of the world...


it just means that the bourgeoisie is not progressive anymore. This isn't rigorous, it's hand-wavy at best.

How were the bourgeoisie not progressive? Why is this so? When did it start and why? Will it remain that way?

These questions are unanswered by this baseless assertion.


You can't turn history into a giant equation. To pretend otherwise is idealism, because scientists are still unable to predict with 100 percent accuracy the decisions of one person, pretending you can do with exactitude for millions is wishful thinking. Ah yes, materialism is idealism, now I've heard everything :lol:


I already posted plenty of evidence. For the record, you have posted 0 external sources. Uh...that's "plenty"?


I would add that the arguments you put forwards against Russia being ready for a revolution are the same as those used by the Mensheviks, Kautsky and then unfortunately by some of the Council Communists. Russia, did have a massive peasantry etc but it also had a highly developed capitalist economy and was fully integrated into the world market. Empirical evidence says otherwise about the "highly developed capitalist economy", even your admission of "a massive peasantry etc" indicates otherwise!

But by all means, what is most convincing is your complete lack of statistics, empirical evidence, and rigor.

As though I should just accept it based off of "imagination" :lol:


The question is not whether Russia was ready or not for revolution, but whether capitalism had reached a stage where it was no-longer an[sic] raising social system? The slaughter of WW1 and the world revolutioinary wave concretely answered this question. Uh, well, besides the phrase "raising social system" being ambiguous and confusing (capitalism has not "raised" since 1917?), you have the problem that capitalism was not fully developed.

So I should just believe in these baseless, idealistic assertions? Why not become religious while I'm at it :lol:

[black magick hustla]

Nor is it intended to be one, as it's called (in the vernecular) an "explanation".

I would call it a petty condescending jab.



From such a standpoint, one is not surprised that Russian capitalism developed in a novel way that is still characteristic of how capitalism always develop.

That's the flaw with your argument here, since I appeal to how capitalism as a system develops as opposed to national tendencies.
*shrugs* I don't think that is true You speak about Russia not being "prepared" for revolution due to material conditions - i.e. you follow the bourgeois logic of borders. By this I mean that just because the political borders of Russia encircled an area where the mayority were peasants, not workers, you argue that the russian working class was not prepared for revolution. What if the political borders surrounded Petrograd? Would you argue then Petrograd was ready for revolution because it was an industrial city where the mayority where proletarians? There is a reason why Kautsky and the mensheviks argued that there couldn't be revolution in russia - because they weren't internationalists and based their arguments on political borders, as if those borders wouldn't be destroyed in socialism and instead there would be a confederation of "national socialisms".

The early bolsheviks knew that the revolution wouldn't survive if it didn't spread, that is why they never argued for socialism in one country. The point wasn't to fight for a "socialist russia", but for socialist world, with the russian working class making its part.



"imperialist powers" were trying to acquire as many regions as possible, not so much as trying to industrialize them thoroughly.

What do I mean by this?

You admitted that regions such as the Ottoman empire, etc. were by far and large unindustrialized. This is correct, so the process of industrializing such regions would do what for capitalism?

Well, that would allow for the expansion of capital, etc. etc. etc., as Marx describes in the Law of accumulation.

But I'm supposed to believe that, given the "imperialist powers" gerrymandered the world into colonies, capitalism was "consolidated"? When there is room for capital to expand, capitalism has consolidated?

Oh c'mon, you are obsessed with the fact that I used "consolidated". By consolidated I meant that it reached its final stage - imperialism, and that beyond it there wasn't other phase of capitalism. But if you have a problem with "consolidated", fine, i'll use "reached", or "turned" into imperialism.




First consider the fact that only the Western fringe of the Russian empire was connected to the world market. The vast majority of the Russian economy was based off of agrarian production instead of industrial production.

Agrarian production is not synonimous to feudalism. Agricultural workers are proletarians in as much as they produce a commodity to be exchanged AND are extracted surplus value. This is a difference from feudalism, where landlords manage land pretty much for self-subsistance rather than treating it as capital.

But even if the agricultural part of russia was dominated by feudal relations, your argument is flawed, because as I said, the start point of your argument are artificial political borders. Your argument is so flakey that if Petrograd and the other cities had separated from russia to form an industrial nation, we wouldn't have this argument in the first place.


Second, this doesn't really constitute "consolidating" power insomuch as finding nowhere else to expand.

If capitalism consolidated its recent gains, the process of industrialization would be much further along in the so-called "developing countries".

The circumstances of the war was that there were no other places to expand.

In a sense, one could posit that the war was the beginning of consolidation of power since a war would require increased production of goods.

The strength of the link is what is in question.
All of this is bogus because you misinterepreted (or perhaps I miscommunicated) my argument because of a silly word.


You assert that because such a link, regardless of how weak and superficial it is, suffices for world revolution.
*shrugs* inter-imperialist war was just a characteristic of decadence. By decadence I mean that capitalism stopped being progressive anymore and therefore it translates politically for communists to opposition to all factions of the bourgeosie - even those bourgeois elements leading national liberation movements.

WWI demonstrated to be a sympton of decadence by many things. For one, it meant that the era of independent economies was over. This was demonstrated by the fact that a single spark in the balkans led to a big chunk of the world to war. In past eras, such a spark wouldn't have led to a war of those proportions simply because different national economies weren't as interconnected as they were in 1914,. It wasn't just a "weak link". "Weak links" don't lead huge chunks of the world to slaughter relentlessly each other just because some prince was assassinated in Serbia.


This is obviously an incorrect assertion given the current circumstances; post factum we can state such a proposition would be incorrect to hold.

Perhaps Marx was correct in stating the conditions for a revolution is having an advanced capitalist system, but since capitalism can still expand into other less industrialized regions of the world it is not yet fully developed.



Yet you provide none, which leaves me wondering about the strength of such propositions...

It is like giving a theorem without a proof: it's worthless!

I gave paragraphs and paragraphs of historical examples as proof. if you want numbers and statistics search them by yourself. This is not an academic journal, and every example that I gave is pretty self-evident. I am sure that the people reading my post would agree-

The rest is not really worth my attention because its just words and words about my misuse (or your misinterpretation) of "consolidated". That argument's worth is not political, but rhetorical, and I am here to argue politics.



It further makes no sense to assert that capitalism "consolidated itself" on two

Sort of like in ecology, given a certain species put in an environment change will evolve in a certain way.

Just as one cannot have a controlled experiment in ecology, so abandon all hope ye who enter here, right?

Well, not quite...no one (not even, in Marx's words, "musicians of the future") can do whatever they want free of constraints.

As Marx says in the Eigteenth Brumaire: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."

I never said that historical materialism is wrong. I simply stated that we don't know enough about all the different hidden variables behind history to justify ridicolous ultra-deterministic politics as yours.



I'm supposed to make believe that this is nothing like 1917 Russia :lol:

Of course it is nothing like Russia in 1917. In 1789 there wasn't an international revolutionary wave of proletarians that shaked the whole world and that not only covered Russia, but virtually the whole world in one degree or the other - to the point that some countries, like Italy and Germany, were to the brink of revolution.

Again, your neo-menshevik politics are wrong because you are unable to see beyond borders and notice international trends.



But based off of your lack of empirical evidence, I would be surprised with your capabilities as a scientist.
I wrote paragraphs and paragraphs of historical evidence.


You don't seem to grasp this simple problem that prior to the 1917 revolutions Russia was post-feudal and pre-capitalist...so how can it magically become socialist?
Russia doesn't becomes "socialist", the world becomes socialist. Russian workers fought for international socialism, not russian socialism.



Further, the consequences of the revolution are precisely the rise of a capitalist system and industrialization. Why should one assert "the revolution was betrayed!" as the correct response?

I don't think it was betrayed. Betrayed is too much of a strong word to described what happened. The bolsheviks were victims of the material conditions - the lack of world revolution and imperialist encirclment.


You don't answer either of these points, but merely reiterate your assertions.

Repeating a point doesn't make it true.

Russia was ready for a revolution, now give a rigorous argument for the rest of the world...

I think my argument is more rigorous than yours. You just went on a tangent on my misuse or your misinterpreation of the world "consoldiation", rather than replying to the historical evidence I posted. You never refuted that.


How were the bourgeoisie not progressive? Why is this so? When did it start and why? Will it remain that way?
They led the world to the brink of barbarism - and in the peripheral countries there is already barbarism. What else do you want? The bourgeosie stops being progressive the day the world is carbonized? Are you going to cheer on them until we face extinction?



For the record, you have posted 0 external sources. Uh...that's "plenty"?

:shrugs: most of the external sources you posted were marx's texts. That just means that your arguments may be consistent with marx. That means nothing to me, because I am more worried about being correct than quoting marx like a bible.

I am not going to go to the library just becuase some sort of really weird neo-menshevik thinks the bourgeosie is progressive after an era of holocausts, enviromental destruction, massive crises, massive wars, and genocide. I posted historical examples known by pretty much everyone in this board, and from there I constructed my argument. That is enough for this context.

[ComradeRed]

I don't think that is true You speak about Russia not being "prepared" for revolution due to material conditions - i.e. you follow the bourgeois logic of borders. Well, it's blatantly obvious now that you aren't trying to read my posts.

But if you had, you would realize that I was saying the circumstances that Russia was facing were remarkably similar to 1789 France.

It was (metaphorically, not literally) "prepared" for a bourgeois revolution. What this means is that the material conditions were such that a bourgeois revolution was one of the probable course of action.

Of course, you assert that it is foolish to look at a region's material conditions locally...as apparently nonlocality can happen? (As causality is tossed aside!)

You never really gave a coherent reason why this is a bad approach to look at the local material conditions, you just assert it's "bourgeois logic of borders"...whatever that's supposed to mean.

But you really miss the entire point of the approach, which is unsurprising given how much you've missed so far.

The point is we're talking about Russia. Remember?

So it's "illogical" or "bourgeois logical" to examine its material conditions? :lol: Hey hey guess what, Marx was a "bourgeois logician" if you've ever read the Eighteenth Brumaire!


By this I mean that just because the political borders of Russia encircled an area where the mayority[sic] were peasants, not workers, you argue that the russian working class was not prepared for revolution. What if the political borders surrounded Petrograd? Would you argue then Petrograd was ready for revolution because it was an industrial city where the mayority[sic] where proletarians? Now you are misapplying the approach of locality.

The point you are gleefully ignorant of here is that the majority of the Russian population as a whole -- because we are talking about Russia's material conditions in 1917 -- was predominantly (remember 80 to 85%) peasantry.

I'm supposed to ignore this and believe it reflects absolutely nothing of the material conditions of Russia?

The fact of the matter - which you admitted - is that Russia was pre-capitalist and post-feudal.

What's the logical thing that's going to happen?

Just pretend it's a workers revolution, ignoring the fact that the working class isn't developed in Russia except in the Western fringes, right? :lol:

Or perhaps compare these circumstances to every other time in history they've arisen? It's by "mere coincidence" that the results always are the same: bourgeois revolution.

But Russia is magically different because "World market! World market!" Well, that's not a logical argument, unsurprisingly enough.



Oh c'mon, you are obsessed with the fact that I used "consolidated". By consolidated I meant that it reached its final stage - imperialism, and that beyond it there wasn't other phase of capitalism. But if you have a problem with "consolidated", fine, i'll use "reached", or "turned" into imperialism. That's a rather static way of looking at things, so I doubt it's validity.

Will the law of accumulation cease to hold? No? There's still surplus value? Commodities are made for profit? Then it's still capitalism.

You can maunder on about "phases" of capitalism rather ambiguously if you'd like, but it's as meaningless as metaphysics.



Agrarian production is not synonimous to feudalism. Agricultural workers are proletarians in as much as they produce a commodity to be exchanged AND are extracted surplus value. This is a difference from feudalism, where landlords manage land pretty much for self-subsistance rather than treating it as capital. Well, ignoring the obvious incompotence in identifying class structure, there are other problems with this line of reasoning.

For example, distinguish a peasant in capitalism with an "agricultural worker"...



But even if the agricultural part of russia was dominated by feudal relations, your argument is flawed, because as I said, the start point of your argument are artificial political borders. Your argument is so flakey that if Petrograd and the other cities had separated from russia to form an industrial nation, we wouldn't have this argument in the first place. :lol: You act as if I made the region of Russia!

I thought our discussion was on the material circumstances of Russia prior to revolution...so it seems logical to look at the material circumstances of Russia prior to the revolution.

You haven't done anything but assert this to either be "bourgeois logic" or "illogical".

But you're still wrong, because you don't grasp my argument. It's really quite simple: Russia was post-feudal and pre-capitalist. It is logical that the process that will happen next is bourgeois revolution.

Why is this logical? Well, for a number of reasons. First we can see this pattern emerge elsewhere in history.

But this is "bourgeois logical" to look at history!


inter-imperialist war was just a characteristic of decadence. That's an example of idealistic reasoning.

A more concrete, materialistic approach would be to explain that the Western powers that were colonizing had run out of places to colonize...but I'm certain you'll just say "Yeah yeah, that's what I mean!"


By decadence I mean that capitalism stopped being progressive anymore and therefore it translates politically for communists to opposition to all factions of the bourgeosie - even those bourgeois elements leading national liberation movements. Rather static way of looking at things.

Kind of untestable either, how would one be able to look and say "Ah, capitalism is 'decadent'"?


For one, it meant that the era of independent economies was over. Ok...how does this have anything remotely to do with "decadence"?


I gave paragraphs and paragraphs of historical examples as proof. if you want numbers and statistics search them by yourself. "Proof? You want proof? How about unsubstantiated bullshit instead?" :lol: :lol: :lol:

This doesn't pass, you still have the burden of proof to demonstrate what you said is true. Asserting it to be "common sense" is a fallacy...



I never said that historical materialism is wrong. I simply stated that we don't know enough about all the different hidden variables behind history to justify ridicolous ultra-deterministic politics as yours. Wait, I thought my approach was so superficial it was "bourgeois logical", now there are "hidden variables"? You sure like to throw around buzz words that have no meaning...

My approach has no "hidden variables" contrary to your claim there, but another baseless unsubstantiated assertion is hardly surprising...

This is actually quite comical, since hidden variables are used to explain nonlocality, but my approach is apparently "superlocal"...you're kind of completely inconsistent here.


In 1789 there wasn't an international revolutionary wave of proletarians that shaked the whole world and that not only covered Russia, but virtually the whole world in one degree or the other - to the point that some countries, like Italy and Germany, were to the brink of revolution. This is clearly false given the circumstances which you agreed held that 80 to 80% of Russia were peasants.

So the question arises: where the hell is this "vast majority of workers"?

This is actually another example of unsubstantiated bullshit, and your lack of citations to anything other than your "gut" is laughable.


I wrote paragraphs and paragraphs of historical evidence. "I wrote sentences of truth because they were written by me!" :lol:

You have the burden of proof, and you are leaving your assertions unsubstantiated.



I think my argument is more rigorous than yours. Lets see, I've cited 3 external sources (in addition to Marx's Capital and Eighteenth Brumaire).

If you add in the sources from the other threads on Russia that I've used, that's about half a dozen or so more external sources.


You've cited 0. That's precisely the percent of rigor of your position too, coincidentally...


They led the world to the brink of barbarism - and in the peripheral countries there is already barbarism. What else do you want? The bourgeosie stops being progressive the day the world is carbonized? Are you going to cheer on them until we face extinction?
For someone who claims to be a materialist, you sure jump the gun to fatalistic and idealistic conclusions.

I'm certain that you'll argue from the gut instead of from empirical evidence on this one, as you seem to like to.

Frankly, your entire argument boils down to "Well, my gut tells me this, thus it must be so."

That's an illogical, unscientific, unrigorous, and patently idealistic approach to things.

But then again, that seems to be common with people defending the USSR.

[La Comédie Noire]

a party modeling itself on the hierarchical Jacobins
I’d say the Jacobins of the French Revolution are closer to the Fascists of Italy and Germany then the Bolsheviks.


So you claim, but where's your proof? Show us how in 1907, the party was subordinate to the CC? Show is again in 1904 and 1909 and 1913.
Usually people don’t start acting like assholes till after they’ve gained some real power. The Central Committee didn’t have the leverage to assert some authority till after October 1917.


However in 1917, the Bolshevik party was where revolutionary workers gathered. This not only included Stalin and Trotsky, but "ultra-lefts" like Myasnikov and early Bukharin.
The workers stopped being revolutionary after October otherwise they wouldn’t have submitted so easily to their bodies of power being made impotent.


"Stageism" belongs to Mensheviks and Maoists, not revolutionary communists.
Come now that’s not fair even the Bolsheviks talked about “lower” and “higher” stages of communism which the workers have to be guided through. New Democracy might as well have been about Russia.

[IronColumn]

Floyd,
The Jacobins were the party of the revolutionary bourgeoisie in France. The party that had most in common with the fascists were the aristocratic youth who surfaced after 9 Thermidor and went around attacking the sans-culottes, called the jeunesse doree.

ICC & Red,
In one of the Situationists' articles, they noted how many people focused on the industrial conditions of Russia (and/or Germany, Italy, Spain, etc.) and argued whether the country was ready for a bourgeois or proletarian revolution. But of course part of the material conditions determining a revolution is the subjective consciousness of the class. From this point of view, the untested and tiny Russian working class had no opportunity to assert its own interests vis a vis the Bolsheviks, because they did not, nor could they have, any idea as to the real content of socialism, because the historical consciousness of the working class at that time had no real concrete experience. I would note that in a more industrialized Germany, there was a strong current against Bolshevism yet for revolution. But still this was a tiny minority as opposed to the Socialists and the still large population of peasants. I suppose what I am trying to say is that both objectively and subjectively, I do not think proletarian revolution was a possibility at that time. At best 'workers governments' would have been created in Germany (just like in 1919 Hungary) which would have carried out the last tasks of the classical bourgeoisie (purging the civil service of aristocrats, agricultural reform, parliamentary democracy, anti-clericalism, nationalization). But I don't think this has anything to do with socialism, rather only mistaking one type of revolution for another.

[La Comédie Noire]

Floyd,
The Jacobins were the party of the revolutionary bourgeoisie in France. The party that had most in common with the fascists were the aristocratic youth who surfaced after 9 Thermidor and went around attacking the sans-culottes, called the jeunesse doree.


The Jacobins were a group of Bourgeoise Radicals with a large working class/ peseant following. They had the apperance of selfless nationalists who were men of the people. They also wished for a strong, centralized republic. I have no doubt in my mind that if they had held power long enough they would've destroyed working class organs they seemed to so feverently support at the time.

Reminds me of the fascists with their class base and what not.

What parallels do you draw between jeunesse doree and the fascists? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just interested.

[Leo]

The point is we're talking about Russia.Yes, and you are talking about it as if it was an isolated planet, completely cut of from the rest of the world, from the impact of the world market, from the impact of imperialist relations and so on.

You are ignoring the international context and material relations and examining Russia purely, and you are not even doing that properly I'm afraid.


the majority of the Russian population as a whole

So there is something called the "Russian population as a whole" from which you draw your conclusions from. Maybe you should come clean and start talking about nations like the Maoists.


Come now that’s not fair even the Bolsheviks talked about “lower” and “higher” stages of communism which the workers have to be guided through.

He is referring to "national stages", stages that every "nation" has to go through before they are "ready" for socialism.


So the question arises: where the hell is this "vast majority of workers"?In Moscow, Petrograd, Perm, Kazan, Yekaterinburg, Novgorod, Vladivostok, Baku, Tashkent, Volgograd, Khabarovsk, Omsk, Arkhangelsk, Novosibirsk, Saratov, Chelyabinsk, Veliky Novgorod, Smolensk, Pskov, Ufa... I can count many many other names if necessary.


For example, distinguish a peasant in capitalism with an "agricultural worker"...The mode of production in agriculture is determined accordingly to what production is orientated towards. If production is orientated and directed according to the interests of capital, that is of industry and world market on the economical level and for the imperial interests of national capital in the political level, then that is a capitalist mode of production and those working for wages both in the form of crops and money are categorized as proletarians, those who own the land and the tools are categorized as bourgeois, those who own a small piece of land and work there with family or a few hired labor are categorized as petty bourgeois / peasant.


80% of Russia were peasants.Yes, this is the sole basis of your argument which you keep repeating. It is false according to the English language definition of the term, since a "peasant" specifically refers in the English language to those who own the land. A very small percent of that 80% owned the land they worked on: landlords owned the land, and they mostly worked on the land. But even that is not the main point.

Was the center of Russia the farms or the cities? Was the capital of Russia an agricultural city or an industrial one? Where was Russia ruled from? Whose interests determined what went on in Russia? What was the "center"? Was the power center of Russia Moscow, Petrograd and other industrialized cities or was it a random farming village. What did the landlords do with agricultural production, was it produced for fulfilling basic consumption needs or for putting the products into the capitalist market?

If Russia was feudal, where were the serfs? Where were the lords raising private armies of knights in their castles against the Tsar?

Really mate, agricultural production does not equal feudalism. Read a bit on what you're talking about, even the mensheviks argument about Russia was more educated than yours.

[Vargha Poralli]

agricultural production does not equal feudalism.

100% agree with you.

To add more to the argument agricultural producers are alos exploited in captilism just like the workers because of the very nature of the occupation. The only difference is the role of capitalists who exploits them as Bankers and usurers who lend money to them, Business who sell the fertilizers and pesticides to them for huge profits and business who buy their products for a low prize and sell them to high profits to workers in the cities.

We should not forget that farmers have no control in majority of the products too . Many of them are perishable which leads to underpricing of them by the middle level commission agents further exploiting them.

Working class is not alone in the struggle and it definitely needs allies where farmers constitute a major part.We cannot ignore them and they cannot ignore us.

One question to you Leo what is your organisation stand on farmers ? I asked this question to Devrim long back and I don't think i got any answer from him.:)

[Devrim]

One question to you Leo what is your organisation stand on farmers ? I asked this question to Devrim long back and I don't think i got any answer from him.:)

What is the actual question, again?

Devrim

[Devrim]

ICC & Red,
In one of the Situationists' articles, they noted how many people focused on the industrial conditions of Russia (and/or Germany, Italy, Spain, etc.) and argued whether the country was ready for a bourgeois or proletarian revolution. But of course part of the material conditions determining a revolution is the subjective consciousness of the class. From this point of view, the untested and tiny Russian working class had no opportunity to assert its own interests vis a vis the Bolsheviks, because they did not, nor could they have, any idea as to the real content of socialism, because the historical consciousness of the working class at that time had no real concrete experience. I would note that in a more industrialized Germany, there was a strong current against Bolshevism yet for revolution. But still this was a tiny minority as opposed to the Socialists and the still large population of peasants. I suppose what I am trying to say is that both objectively and subjectively, I do not think proletarian revolution was a possibility at that time. At best 'workers governments' would have been created in Germany (just like in 1919 Hungary) which would have carried out the last tasks of the classical bourgeoisie (purging the civil service of aristocrats, agricultural reform, parliamentary democracy, anti-clericalism, nationalization). But I don't think this has anything to do with socialism, rather only mistaking one type of revolution for another.

This is a very interesting post which raises a lot of questions.

The position that Russia wasn't ready for revolution in 1917 is one that was adopted by parts of the German left who were looking for an explanation of what had gone wrong with the revolution.

However, it was also the position of the Mensheviks, who believed that alone a bourgeois revolution was possible.

It is a distinctly unanarchist position.

I would just like to ask a few question before commenting, IC.

1) Is revolution possible today?

2) If so when did it become possible?

3) What was the fundamental change that made it possible?

4) What should communists have done before it was possible?

5) Does the possibility apply to the world, or specific countries?

Devrim

[IronColumn]

Devrim,

I don't think this position is really un-anarchist; I believe that many anarchists take/took this view after the revolution. However to my knowledge there is little surviving anarchist theory from the time, the only real books I've read from anarchists at this time are Goldman, Berkman, Volineand Arshinov, who all focus on the events rather than an analysis. So I suppose you may be right, however I assume anarchists probably got this analysis from the councilists who drifted towards anarchism like Ruhle. I don't feel that what I've expounded is menshevistic because menshevism only takes into account 'objective' factors like industry and percentage of proletarians rather than the "greatest productive power" of class consciousness. I feel this is distinctly different from saying that Russia was fated by stages to become capitalist, but of course this plays a part,and some councilists did take this position like Brendel.

1)I believe so
2&3)I largely think it is idle speculation to fix a date in time. When a successful revolution happens we can look back and perhaps fix a date if we want to. I personally would not want to draw a line in the sand at say 1914, or even in my view the more sensible 1871. What I think is different now is that the old workers' movement has completely died and lost all credibility with workers, and that the bourgeois revolutions of the 1960's, the national liberation struggles, have all been played out, and that we are approaching not a stagflation crisis but a real depression.
4)I think they should have tried their best, but we shouldn't be surprised at their limitations. Marx and Engels were fighting with petty bourgeois democrats in 1848 simply because there was no real proletariat yet in Germany. Lenin and Trotsky had to create a centralized peasant conscript army because there simply weren't enough workers and sailors militias to fight the whites. In sum, the revolutionary project is an historical process of 'becoming' for the working class, so even an effort as failed as in Russia or Spain is not valueless because as Kropotkin says it teaches us 'what not to do'.
5)Because capitalism is more than ever a global system, the world.

In conclusion I think the Left communist focus on 1917-1923 is tantalized by the prospect of victory being so close for the 'world revolution'. I personally think there was greater potential in May 68 than say January 1919, even if superficially there seemed greater chance for the Spartacus week than the mass movement of May. Similarly I think the mass movements that are to come in the next decade are going to have much greater coherence and potential than that of May 68.

[Devrim]

I don't feel that what I've expounded is menshevistic because menshevism
I am not the sort of person who goes round screaming Menshevik at people (The TKP did it to us at one our our public meetings once).
There are similarities between the ideas of the councilists, and the Mensheviks though. Both deny that there was a proletarian revolution in Russia. It is a question I should have included. Do you think that the October revolution was proletarian or bourgoise?


I don't think this position is really un-anarchist; I believe that many anarchists take/took this view after the revolution.

Whether it is anarchist or not isn't really the point, but to me it does seem to be a much more 'Marxist' analyisis than an anarchist one.


I largely think it is idle speculation to fix a date in time. When a successful revolution happens we can look back and perhaps fix a date if we want to.

I agree.


I personally would not want to draw a line in the sand at say 1914, or even in my view the more sensible 1871.

We say "by 1914". The reason that we say this is two-fold. The first is to do with the emergence of the mass strike, and Soviets just after the turn of the century (Holland 1903, Russia 1905. In many ways before this the working class hadn't discovered how to struggle, nor what the form of class power would be. The second is that the opening off the World War showed that there was nowhere left for capital to expand, and that it had become decadent.


I think they should have tried their best, but we shouldn't be surprised at their limitations. Marx and Engels were fighting with petty bourgeois democrats in 1848 simply because there was no real proletariat yet in Germany. Lenin and Trotsky had to create a centralized peasant conscript army because there simply weren't enough workers and sailors militias to fight the whites. In sum, the revolutionary project is an historical process of 'becoming' for the working class, so even an effort as failed as in Russia or Spain is not valueless because as Kropotkin says it teaches us 'what not to do'.

You are certainly right about the lessons. I think that there is another question here about the possibility of reforms, and how to fight for them.


In conclusion I think the Left communist focus on 1917-1923 is tantalized by the prospect of victory being so close for the 'world revolution'. I personally think there was greater potential in May 68 than say January 1919, even if superficially there seemed greater chance for the Spartacus week than the mass movement of May. Similarly I think the mass movements that are to come in the next decade are going to have much greater coherence and potential than that of May 68.

What about Iran in 1979, and Poland in 1980? I think the Paris events were important, but it wasn't the last big mass strike.

Whether they were 'more important' than the revolutionary wave is another question.

Devrim

[Vargha Poralli]

What is the actual question, again?


Here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1043513&postcount=27)

That was long back.

[IronColumn]

Devrim,

The only question I could find in your last post was over the content of the October Revolution. In Russia as in many other countries after/during WW1 there was a situation created of dual power with the state against the councils. The working class was certainly involved in this. However I do not feel that the October revolution was proletarian, for reasons I've already mentioned.

I have a question for you: were the Hungarian, Finnish and Munich Revolutions proletarian as well? I say this because these were the only few brief successes of the world revolution. In all these events there is a situation of dual power, yet the working classes give power to one party or another. In my mind it's much easier to see, away from the luminous example of Russia, the shallowness of the conceptions of revolution. In Hungary everything was social democratic except for a few ministers like Bela Kun, as in Munich, and in Finland they only had social democrats for the duration of the civil war. In this I think we find the true nature of bolshevism, which was merely a revolutionary social-democracy, but still a social-democracy. Debord said somewhere that Lenin reproached Kautsky for not being a revolutionary social democrat, instead of chiding him for social democracy.

Moreover, if Russia was the only successful revolution, how do you expect this to happen again? There are no thousands strong bolshevik parties, and there are far more tiny parties. I do not think the working class will ever again give power to one party over its own councils. This leads me to another question: do the L-C's (EKS, ICC, IBRP, IP etc.) see their goal in a revolution as recreating the government of Russia in late 1917, complete with salaried ambassadors and presidents?

[Devrim]

I have a question for you: were the Hungarian, Finnish and Munich Revolutions proletarian as well? I say this because these were the only few brief successes of the world revolution. In all these events there is a situation of dual power, yet the working classes give power to one party or another. In my mind it's much easier to see, away from the luminous example of Russia, the shallowness of the conceptions of revolution. In Hungary everything was social democratic except for a few ministers like Bela Kun, as in Munich, and in Finland they only had social democrats for the duration of the civil war. In this I think we find the true nature of bolshevism, which was merely a revolutionary social-democracy, but still a social-democracy. Debord said somewhere that Lenin reproached Kautsky for not being a revolutionary social democrat, instead of chiding him for social democracy.

Maybe the question should be whether they were revolutions or not. I agree with you that there was a situation of dual power. I don't think that the working class took power in these places.

I think that the quote at the end sounds more like Barrot/Davue that Debord. It may come from the pamphlet that was published in English as "The "Renegade" Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin" http://libcom.org/library/renegade-kautsky-disciple-lenin-dauve ,but I could be wrong.



Moreover, if Russia was the only successful revolution, how do you expect this to happen again? There are no thousands strong bolshevik parties, and there are far more tiny parties. I do not think the working class will ever again give power to one party over its own councils. This leads me to another question: do the L-C's (EKS, ICC, IBRP, IP etc.) see their goal in a revolution as recreating the government of Russia in late 1917, complete with salaried ambassadors and presidents?

In answer to the question I would say no (though obviously I only speak for the EKS and don't represent these other organisations). We also don't think that it is the task of the party to take power.

Another question for you. If revolution was impossible was the Bolshevik party right to do what it did?

Devrim

[Devrim]

Here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1043513&postcount=27)

That was long back.

I missed it at the time, sorry. I will try to come back to it tomorrow.

Devrim

[IronColumn]

Devrim,

I think it would be hard to say that there was not a revolution in those places. Especially in Hungary where a "workers' government" lasted several months and nationalized most industries and formed a red army to fight puppet-entente forces. I just think that these were sort of a belated bourgeois revolution, due to circumstances I've already explained.

Also I am confused when you say that the goal of your party is not to take power nor to form ministries upon the assumption of power. If it was the proletarian thing for Bolsheviks to do in 1917, why would it not be now? Moreover I don't know whether the Bolsheviks were abstractly 'right' or 'wrong' at the time. I think of it more as that I can understand what they were trying to do and why they did it, the same as with the Jacobins. But I understand the thrust of this question, and I would not imply that the Bolsheviks should have assisted in the creation of a parliamentary republic as desired by the Mensheviks and some Bolsheviks. The role of the Bolsheviks is a revolutionary one, and this can be admired, but it should be understood as a bourgeois revolutionary phenomenon which is completely different from the proletarian revolution. To me it seems like EKS (and maybe others) at least has recognized this in deed, if not in word, by recognizing that they won't take power a la October 1917.

[Leo]

but it should be understood as a bourgeois revolutionary phenomenon which is completely different from the proletarian revolution. To me it seems like EKS (and maybe others) at least has recognized this in deed, if not in word, by recognizing that they won't take power a la October 1917.

I think it is necessary to clarify this: the point is first of all about saying that history is never repeated in the same way it was and secondly it is in relation to seeing that the party merged with the state as a result of the isolation of the proletarian revolution. Fundamentally though we think that the soviets, workers councils, taking power was and still is the way to go.

[Devrim]

Devrim,

I think it would be hard to say that there was not a revolution in those places. Especially in Hungary where a "workers' government" lasted several months and nationalized most industries and formed a red army to fight puppet-entente forces. I just think that these were sort of a belated bourgeois revolution, due to circumstances I've already explained.

Were the 'worker's government the working class in power? Of course one could argue that about the situation in Russia.


Also I am confused when you say that the goal of your party is not to take power nor to form ministries upon the assumption of power. If it was the proletarian thing for Bolsheviks to do in 1917, why would it not be now?

We don't think that it was a proletarian thing for the Bolsheviks to do in 1917. We think that it was wrong. However, it is the experience of the class that teaches us this. Many lessons come from the failure of the Russian revolution, and the Bolsheviks didn't have that hindsight at the time. Positions that were mistakes in 1917, now represent more than that.


To me it seems like EKS (and maybe others) at least has recognized this in deed, if not in word, by recognizing that they won't take power a la October 1917.

I don't see how this shows we consider October to have been a bourgeois revolution.

Devrim

[Devrim]

What is the status of peasantry in Turkey ? What % of population they constitute compared to working class and how much control they have over their occupation ?
What is your organisation's stance on them ? And how are they organised ?

Sorry that this is late. The percentage of the population working in agriculture in Turkey (as of 2004) is 35.9% compared to 22.8%, 41.2% for industry and services respectively.

Of course not all of those who work in agriculture are peasants. It is important to recognise that there is of course class division in the countryside, ranging from the big peasant to the agricultural worker. In between that there are varying intermediate sectors, medium peasants, small peasants, share croppers, small peasants who also work...

One thing to be stressed is that Turkey is an urbanised modern society. İstanbul is the world's third biggest city, and Ankara is Europe*'s third biggest city (after London). Also a third of the country's population can be found in the three biggest cities alone.

Basically our perspective is that the small peasantry will vacillate between support for the working class, and the ruling class. We believe that the small peasantry is becoming more and more proletarianized, and to a certain extent being destroyed as a class. It can support worker's struggles, but any revolution in Turkey must by its nature be a workers revolution. A peasant revolution is impossible today.

Devrim

*Taking Europe to be the EU, and applicant countries

[Leo]

One question to you Leo what is your organisation stand on farmers ?

As Devrim said, not all of those who work in agriculture are peasants. It is important to recognize that there is class division in the countryside, ranging from the big peasant to the agricultural worker. Possibly our attitude towards these differing section would be interesting.

On this question, I'd say that the "big peasants", that is the big land owners as well as high bureaucrats of farming cooperatives, in general the rural bourgeoisie are obviously a full part of the bourgeoisie.

Then there is the part of what is called the peasantry that is petty-bourgeois. This would include small land owners, those who work their land with family labor or a small number of wage laborers for the most part, and a certain group of tenant farmers that mostly exists in the west who own their own farming tools and rent land as if renting the management of a shop.

The third category would be the tenant farmers, sharecroppers and those working for a cooperative, who mostly work for their subsistence, under horrible conditions and who either own no land, or a tiny and worthless (not fertile) piece of land. They are sometimes at least part time wage laborers as well, and live in conditions of misery. The relations of this layer with the land is in most cases very similar to that between the agricultural worker and the landlord or the cooperative where the landlord or the cooperative almost pays them a wage, but instead of with money the land owner pays it with crops. They generally live in the worst misery in most of the world. This layer has absolutely nothing to lose and a world to win from the proletarian revolution. Nevertheless, their loyalty to the proletariat depends on the proletariats own decisiveness.

As for possible measures after the revolution, I think saying that medium and large estates will be collectivized by agricultural workers and landless or poor peasants like the sharecroppers and tenant farmers, and while not forced, owners of small estates who do not employ wage labor will be encouraged to collectivize their land also, would be generally applicable.