Was Stalin's Russia state capitalist?

[Mike666]

What do you think?

[Holden Caulfield]

no

[spartan]

No it was an Isolationist Autarky governed and administered by an unelected and unaccountable oligarchy with a figurehead leader.

The economy was a centrally planned one where the majority of industries were state-owned and managed by the state (rather then worker's councils (i.e. Soviets) as was the original plan).

Towards the end of the Stalin era the country started to break away from it's Isolationism (mostly as a result of WW2 and the begining of it's rivalry with America) and became more Imperialist (though cloaked in socialist internationalism of course to justify it's Imperialism and even to make it seem appealing to others).

Thus though it was still an Autarky it was one which wished to expand rather then consolidate and protect what it already had (the whole point of an Autarky is self-sufficiency).

This led to the USSR's demise as it couldn't compete with the USA in this field.

The USSR effectively overreached itself on the world stage and it's people's discontent at a lack of democracy finally finished it off when the oligarchy, desperately trying to find a compromise with the discontented people and growing amount of reformers, appointed a feckless reformist as it's figurehead leader in the final years before it's demise.

[Charles Xavier]

No, it was socialist.

Spartan is showing he is a windbag.

[Holden Caulfield]

Spartan is showing he is a windbag.
shut up you Stalinist drone, Spartan put a point across in a proper manner, something neither of us have been bothered to.

Stalins Russia was NOT socialism, where was the workers democracy etc?

[ZeroNowhere]

No it was an Isolationist Autarky governed and administered by an unelected and unaccountable oligarchy with a figurehead leader.
Crud, even the SLP's 'bureacratic state despotism' was less wordy than that.
Though I don't see how being autarkic or not means that something is or is not capitalism (though the USSR certainly was not a complete autarky).


What do you think?
Yes.

[Black Sheep]

it was an Isolationist Autarky governed and administered by an unelected and unaccountable oligarchy with a figurehead leader.Unelected? Werent the goverment elected by their soviets?



The economy was a centrally planned one where the majority of industries were state-owned and managed by the state (rather then worker's councils (i.e. Soviets) as was the original plan).The one doesnt rule out the other.The AMOUNT of production is the only thing that is calculated by the state,with input of the poeples' needs and the production capacity of other production units forming a larger picture of organization and planning.It is what we call CENTRAL PLANNING, opposed to decentralized planning where a large percentage of the needs of a geographically small community are satisfied by the local production means.

Central planning is utilized when you aim for the best possible result in directing production to satisfying human needs.

[Tower of Bebel]

No, it was socialist.
It was stateless and classless?

[Black Sheep]

It was stateless and classless?
He said socialist not communist .
:confused:

[Tower of Bebel]

He said socialist not communist .
:confused:
Yeah, I should have written a state that is withering away (as opposed to the Soviet state which only grew stronger and more omnipresent). I confused the lower (socialism) with the higher stage of communism.

[Yehuda Stern]

It's pretty obvious it was capitalist, unless you think that a change can state its class basis through manipulations at the top, without a revolution (which admittedly many "Marxists" do).

[Robespierre2.0]

Yeah, I should have written a state that is withering away (as opposed to the Soviet state which only grew stronger and more omnipresent). I confused the lower (socialism) with the higher stage of communism.

You don't seriously expect the state to wither away when imperialist powers are encircling the socialist camp and doing all they can to sabotage and destroy it from the inside, do you?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Check these out:

http://www.marxists.de/statecap/binns/statecap.htm

http://www.marxists.de/statecap/harman/revlost.htm

[Tower of Bebel]

You don't seriously expect the state to wither away when imperialist powers are encircling the socialist camp and doing all they can to sabotage and destroy it from the inside, do you?
You don't seriously expect socialism to succeed when the proletariat is surrounded by capital?

We have both very different views of socialism, that's a fact. To me socialism cannot simply be reversed, especially not by an act from the inside - by an act of certain element among the leading figures of society - because it is international and a conscious act of the proletariat as a whole. Also, to me socialism already means the withering away of the state. The presence of the bourgeoisie as the agent of capital and its attempts to choke the Soviet Union means that the proletariat is not the dominant class in society as a whole (global/international).

[Rangi]

I agree with Spartan.

I think the USSR was capitalist by default by being in a world that was predominantly capitalist.

[BobKKKindle$]

Spartan is wrong - the USSR was not autarkic. Autarky refers to a situation in which a country is able to sustain itself solely with its own natural resources and expertise without having to rely on any other country or form of external aid. The USSR did not fit this definition, as throughout the Stalinist period, or at least until the government had succeeded in training sufficient numbers of engineers, the USSR was forced to hire experts from abroad in order to organize industrial expansion, and in particular large engineering projects such as the construction of Magnitogorsk and other major cities. The USSR was also not isolationist, as the government consistently intervened in the affairs of other countries in order to ensure that the interests of the bureaucracy would not be threatened by a successful and genuine socialist revolution elsewhere, such as Spain. Following WW2, the USSR also sought to impose its own system of government and state-capitalist economic model on the countries of Eastern Europe, which threafter served as a market for goods produced inside the USSR and a source of cheap labour.

[Lamanov]

Yes, it was.

Dunayevskaya: The Nature of the Russian Economy (http://marx.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1946/statecap.htm)
Aufheben: What was the USSR? (http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_6_ussr1.html) (part 1 of 4)

[Das war einmal]

Yeah, I should have written a state that is withering away (as opposed to the Soviet state which only grew stronger and more omnipresent). I confused the lower (socialism) with the higher stage of communism.

Yeah, why did the Soviet state grew stronger and more omnipresent? I agree with that, but why do you think that happened?

[Das war einmal]

I say, no it wasn't, it is socialism with a strong state. There was no private property of means of production. The soviet state was indeed a bastion against capitalist imperialism. I would have rather seen the state building off but the question is if the USSR would have the means and power to fight off fascism. I'm really glad they did destroy fascism and I think we should give the Russians a lot more credit for their role in WW2.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RR:


There was no private property of means of production.

Property relations cannot define a state as socialist. If they could, then the Roman Catholic Church in, say, 1215 was socialist!

[Das war einmal]

You don't seriously expect socialism to succeed when the proletariat is surrounded by capital?

We have both very different views of socialism, that's a fact. To me socialism cannot simply be reversed, especially not by an act from the inside - by an act of certain element among the leading figures of society - because it is international and a conscious act of the proletariat as a whole. Also, to me socialism already means the withering away of the state. The presence of the bourgeoisie as the agent of capital and its attempts to choke the Soviet Union means that the proletariat is not the dominant class in society as a whole (global/international).

The level of consciousness may have been to low and maybe it still too low, you should know that the influence of say, the church has been and still is very large, even for workers who have a very low standard of living (they have been promised a good live in heaven if they are true to faith).

The workers may not have been fully aware of the role they needed to play in the local and higher Soviets, but atleast the communist vanguard/ party tried to inspire them, they have tried everything to build a better, more equal society and they did have some success, but it utterly failed, as the more advanced, capitalist world has thrown everything but the kitchen sink to prevent the workers from gaining control. Lenin and the bolsheviks tried to export the revolution, it got destroyed, not by Stalin, but by the capitalist forces. Stalin was surrounded by fascist countries and he and the government knew they were intending to destroy the Soviet Union and he was right. The statement of Trotsky that Stalin betrayed the revolution is therefor false and oppertunist as there was really nothing else the Soviet Union could do at that time, however, there are lots of authoritarian decisssions made by Stalin that bear no justification.

The Soviet Union has been given a bad hand of cards to begin with and with that in the back of the mind, they really didnt do too bad. There is no Soviet Union now to protect us against a new wave of imperialism or fascism so we need to work harder than ever before and stop pointing fingers.

[Das war einmal]

RR:



Property relations cannot define a state as socialist. If they could, then the Roman Catholic Church in, say, 1215 was socialist!

No but Roman Catholic Church took everything for themselves and gave nothing to the common folk. The fact that the Soviet Union tried to distribute the production to the people made it socialist. Anyhow the Roman Catholic Church was also not capitalist, but feudalistic

[spartan]

No but Roman Catholic Church took everything for themselves and gave nothing to the common folk. The fact that the Soviet Union tried to distribute the production to the people made it socialist. Anyhow the Roman Catholic Church was also not capitalist, but feudalistic

Capitalism is Feudalism industrialised.

True free market 'capitalism' of the kind progressive men advocated in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is called Liberalism.

Capitalism was the compromise between the old guard (feudals) and the new guard (liberals) and is thus a 'bastard child' as it were of Feudalism and Liberalism.

This is why we still retain inheritance (a thoroughly feudal concept) and why the western corporatocracy has effectively prevented a majority of people from advancing from their current class status and kept them in their place like the feudal barons used to.

This wouldn't be allowed to happen in a truly Liberal society as it is against Liberal principles.

Note that by Liberal I am talking of classic Liberalism not the modern Liberalism which emerged in the late ninetenth century as a compromise between socialism and capitalism (i.e. Social Liberalism).

[Das war einmal]

Capitalism is Feudalism industrialised.

True free market 'capitalism' of the kind progressive men advocated in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is called Liberalism.

Capitalism was the compromise between the old guard (feudals) and the new guard (liberals) and is thus a 'bastard child' as it were of Feudalism and Liberalism.

This is why we still retain inheritance (a thoroughly feudal concept) and why the western corporatocracy has effectively prevented a majority of people from advancing from their current class status and kept them in their place like the feudal barons used to.

This wouldn't be allowed to happen in a truly Liberal society as it is against Liberal principles.

Note that by Liberal I am talking of classic Liberalism not the modern Liberalism which emerged in the late ninetenth century as a compromise between socialism and capitalism (i.e. Social Liberalism).

Liberalism was just the ideology the bourgeois gave for their fight against feudalism. When they got what they wanted (power) they threw 'Equality and Brotherhood' in the dump so that Socialist would pick it up. Socialism is the child of the shortcoming of Liberalism. You're right though that the world has never been rid properly of feudalism and its a shame that it still exist in this new millennium.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RR:


No but Roman Catholic Church took everything for themselves and gave nothing to the common folk. The fact that the Soviet Union tried to distribute the production to the people made it socialist. Anyhow the Roman Catholic Church was also not capitalist, but feudalistic

1) They gave alms to the poor quite extensively.

2) Yes it was feudal, but as I noted, property relations cannot determine the nature of the state. You have to look at the relations of production (which is what you did to determine that this was a feudal mode of production). In this case, these tell you the Roman Catholic Church was feudal, but they also tell us that the former USSR was State Capitalist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Capitalism is Feudalism industrialised.

True free market 'capitalism' of the kind progressive men advocated in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is called Liberalism.

Capitalism was the compromise between the old guard (feudals) and the new guard (liberals) and is thus a 'bastard child' as it were of Feudalism and Liberalism.

This is why we still retain inheritance (a thoroughly feudal concept) and why the western corporatocracy has effectively prevented a majority of people from advancing from their current class status and kept them in their place like the feudal barons used to.

This wouldn't be allowed to happen in a truly Liberal society as it is against Liberal principles.

Note that by Liberal I am talking of classic Liberalism not the modern Liberalism which emerged in the late ninetenth century as a compromise between socialism and capitalism (i.e. Social Liberalism).

Marx made a very similar thesis-antithesis-synthesis analogy in one of his earlier works (unless you actually read this to base your position on):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02c.htm


But we all know that competition was engendered by feudal monopoly. Thus competition was originally the opposite of monopoly and not monopoly the opposite of competition. So that modern monopoly is not a simple antithesis, it is on the contrary the true synthesis.

Thesis: Feudal monopoly, before competition.

Antithesis: Competition.

Synthesis: Modern monopoly, which is the negation of feudal monopoly, in so far as it implies the system of competition, and the negation of competition in so far as it is monopoly.

Thus modern monopoly, bourgeois monopoly, is synthetic monopoly, the negation of the negation, the unity of opposites. It is monopoly in the pure, normal, rational state.

[BobKKKindle$]

Capitalism is Feudalism industrialised.

This makes no sense. The overthrow of feudalism was what made industrialization possible, because it resolved the conflict between the further development of the forces of production and the fetters imposed by feudal relations of production, such that the overthrow of feudalism signified a change in the mode of production and the victory of the bourgeoisie over the landed gentry. Most importantly, this revolution created a free labour market, in contrast to the serfdom which had prevailed under feudalism, allowing peasants to migrate to urban areas in order to work in factories and other industrial workplaces, providing a flexible source of cheap labour for the embryonic capitalist class.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR, we have been over this before!

This typology: Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis is not only not derived from Hegel (it was in fact based on a misunderstanding of Hegel by Marx's teachers), it makes little sense anyway:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=1157

[Cumannach]

Comrade Rosa,

What exactly do you mean by 'property relations'?

And what is the difference between 'property relations' and 'relations of production'?

[BobKKKindle$]

We should not base our understanding of whether a country is socialist or not solely on the juridical expression of property - i.e. whether the constitution or law of that country says that people are allowed to own private property. Instead, we seek to examine the class structure of that society, and especially whether production is organized on a capitalist basis. If we adopt this materialist and empirical approach it becomes clear that the USSR was not socialist or even a degenerated workers state, but instead a state-capitalist regime, due to the existence of a proletariat, the members of which were denied control of the means of production, and payed less than the value of their labour in order to develop the productive forces and support the consumption of the ruling class. This shows that a crucial feature of any workers state is democratic control over production through Soviets and other mass organizations.

[ZeroNowhere]

Liberalism not the modern Liberalism which emerged in the late ninetenth century as a compromise between socialism and capitalism (i.e. Social Liberalism).
Wait, what?
Though its origins were in preventing revolution, it was certainly not a 'compromise between socialism and capitalism', whatever that's supposed to mean.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ka1mi:


What exactly do you mean by 'property relations'?

The sort of thing that RR was referring to: private property in the means of production, etc.


And what is the difference between 'property relations' and 'relations of production'?

How surplus value is pumped out of the working class, the class structure of a given mode of production and the relations of control over the means of production.

[Das war einmal]

RR:



1) They gave alms to the poor quite extensively.

2) Yes it was feudal, but as I noted, property relations cannot determine the nature of the state. You have to look at the relations of production (which is what you did to determine that this was a feudal mode of production). In this case, these tell you the Roman Catholic Church was feudal, but they also tell us that the former USSR was State Capitalist.

Define state capitalism. State capitalism is in my opinion bullshit, because capitalism is about private property of means of production and making profit for individuals, both were not present in the USSR.

[ZeroNowhere]

Define state capitalism. State capitalism is in my opinion bullshit, because capitalism is about private property of means of production and making profit for individuals, both were not present in the USSR.
Capitalism is defined by class relations, as is socialism. "We care nothing for forms. We want a change of the inside of the mechanism of society, let the form take care of itself. We see in England a crowned monarch; we see in Germany a sceptered emperor; we see in this country an uncrowned president, and we fail to see the essential difference between Germany, England or America. That being the case, we are skeptics as to forms. We are like grown children, in the sense that we like to look at the inside of things and find out what is there."

[BobKKKindle$]

Define state capitalism. State capitalism is in my opinion bullshit, because capitalism is about private property

If capitalism is "about" private property, i.e. if an economic based solely on state ownership is not capitalist, then did the British government create a "socialist sector" of the economy by nationalizing strategic industries such as mining and utilities after WW2 and subordinating these industries to the control of government officials? Did the USSR suddenly create new socialist countries in Eastern Europe by imposing its own political and economic model on these countries, despite the fact that the working class had absolutely no role in the changes which took place, and in many instances actively resisted the Soviet occupation? Was Nazi Germany a socialist country during the war because the government took control of the whole economy and organized production according to a national plan?

The answer to all of these questions is no, because workers are still capable of being exploited, and subject to the control of a managerial elite, even if the economy is owned and controlled by the state apparatus. Capitalism is not "about" private property because Marxists evaluate modes of production based on social relations - what is the class structure of the society we are examining, how does the working population receive payment for the labour they provide to the ruling class, how is surplus value allocated, how is investment organized, and so on. Based on this criterion, the USSR, and all other states which have referred to themselves as being "socialist", were in fact state capitalist, because they replicated exactly the same inequalities and exploitative power structures as any other capitalist society.

[Das war einmal]

Based on this criterion, the USSR, and all other states which have referred to themselves as being "socialist", were in fact state capitalist, because they replicated exactly the same inequalities and exploitative power structures as any other capitalist society.
Socialism isnt 'classless', but it is to strive towards a communist society. the USSR was in now way similar to other capitalist countries. They delivered an end to exploitation by landowners or other capitalists. The state straved to end exploitation by capitalist classes. The collectivisation of the land, was such an example.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RR:


Define state capitalism.

Define 'define'.


State capitalism is in my opinion bullshit, because capitalism is about private property of means of production and making profit for individuals, both were not present in the USSR.

This is a very narrow and incorrect 'definition' of capitalism, as the above shows. But, full marks for simply ignoring it.:rolleyes:

[BobKKKindle$]

Socialism isnt 'classless',Of course not. However, socialism is based on the power of the proletariat, which raises itself to the position of the ruling class through a successful socialist revolution, and exercises its democratic dictatorship over the remnants of the bourgeoisie and other reactionary forces which might try to reverse the gains of the revolution and restore capitalism, until the successful attainment of a communist society following an international revolution and the withering away of the state. Socialism is, in essence, a transitional stage, exhibiting many of the features of a future community society, including workers control, during which the state is already beginning to disappear. Stalinist Russia did not match this vision. Workers were exploited, and the members of the bureaucracy, i.e. the new ruling class following the failure of the revolution to spread to other countries, benefited from this exploitation through higher salaries, above the value of their labour, and access to other privileges such as shops selling luxury goods beyond the reach of ordinary workers.


The collectivisation of the land, was such an exampleCollectivization signified a struggle between the landed peasantry and the bureaucracy over surplus value. It does not prove in any way that the USSR was socialist, and actually supports the state-capitalist argument, because peasants working on collective forms encountered higher taxes than they had been forced to pay under Tsarism.

The source for all of these points and facts can be found here, in Tony Cliff's texts, which includes links to government documents, the works of other historians, and so on: http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/ch01-s3.htm#s11

[Das war einmal]

Thats false if anything else 'stalinist' USSR was doing everything possible preventing the steadily return of capitalism and the collectivisation was allready planned under Lenin. Its very countryrevolutionair to state that the farmers where having a harder time under the Soviet rule than under Tsarism. The fact that your source is by a trotskyst author doesnt make your point any stronger either. Trotsky attacked the ideas of Lenin in 1904 and later used the same bullshit menshevik arguments to attack the Central Comite under Stalin. He never believed that socialism could work out in Russia because in his opinion the farmers where to degenerate. Instead, he was putting his money on the European proletariat, which was far less revolutionary than the Russian proletarian/ peasantry.

In his arrogance Trotsky's antileninist statements served as a fine example of anticommunist propaganda throughout the entire existence of the Soviet Union.

[BobKKKindle$]

Thats false if anything else 'stalinist' USSR was doing everything possible preventing the steadily return of capitalismThis makes no sense. How could the bureaucracy be doing everything possible to defend socialism if the USSR was already under the control of a new capitalist ruling class, in the form of the bureaucracy, which controlled the means of production through the state and benefited from the exploitation of the working class? The bureaucracy gradually undermined the gains of the revolution by removing the Troika, which had previously ensured that workers were able to have their say on questions relating to the organization and functioning of their workplaces, and instituting "one-man management" in its place. How can a country possibly be socialist if it maintains a hierarchical division of labour and allows an elite to accumulate vast wealth at the expense of the working class? Do you also believe that the post-war governments of Eastern Europe were socialist?


Trotsky attacked the ideas of Lenin in 1904 and later used the same bullshit menshevik arguments to attack the Central Comite under StalinThis is also wrong. Trotsky was one of the first Marxists to recognize that the Russian bourgeoisie was incapable of carrying out its historic tasks such as introducing democracy and industrial development in the same way as the bourgeoisies which had taken power in other capitalist countries, such as France, and so these tasks would have to be completed by the proletariat, which, owing to Russia's low level of development, would also seek to ignite an international revolution. This was the exact opposite of what the Mensheviks were arguing, as they believed that Russia would only be ready for socialism after an extended period of capitalist development under the political domination of the bourgeoisie, and rejected the possibility of a socialist revolution in the near future. Stalin drew heavily on Menshevik rhetoric by encouraging workers in other semi-colonial countries such as China to unite with their respective ruling classes instead of maintaining their own organizational independence and agitating for socialist revolution as part of the struggle against imperialism, as Lenin argued when discussing national oppression.

[BIG BROTHER]

Yes, it was.

Dunayevskaya: The Nature of the Russian Economy (http://marx.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1946/statecap.htm)
Aufheben: What was the USSR? (http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_6_ussr1.html) (part 1 of 4)

yea and stalin was a state bourgeoisie....and the fall of the soviet union wasn't was the most progressive thing the world has ever seen....:tt2:

[PRC-UTE]

It would be a qualified yes to Lenin's NEP, but Stalin's Russia? no, it simply didn't operate in a capitalist way. it was a command economy that didn't experience the cycles of boom and bust or other inherent aspects of capitalism. and despite what people will often tell you, many of the state's administration were promoted cadres who were proletarian or peasant in background.

[Black Sheep]

yea and stalin was a state bourgeoisie....and the fall of the soviet union wasn't was the most progressive thing the world has ever seen...
Is that a poll? :D

[spartan]

Wait, what?
Though its origins were in preventing revolution, it was certainly not a 'compromise between socialism and capitalism', whatever that's supposed to mean.

Social Liberals combine a largely privatised economy (capitalism) with regulation (as opposed to nationalisation), welfare, a central bank, universal health care, universal suffrage, public hosuing and free education (traits of socialism and what socialists, at least back then, argued for).

Social Liberals see themselves as a middle ground between the capitalists and socialists, that is why social liberals like to claim they are 'for all the people' unlike capitalism (which they see as only for the rich people) and socialism (which they see as only for the working people).

[Charles Xavier]

Social Liberals combine a largely privatised economy (capitalism) with regulation (as opposed to nationalisation), welfare, a central bank, universal health care, universal suffrage, public hosuing and free education (traits of socialism and what socialists, at least back then, argued for).

Social Liberals see themselves as a middle ground between the capitalists and socialists, that is why social liberals like to claim they are 'for all the people' unlike capitalism (which they see as only for the rich people) and socialism (which they see as only for the working people).


You must be American because Social Liberals in Canada privatize health care, decriminalize pot, allow gay marriage, support deregulation of trade, privatize everything they can get their hands on. Social Liberals see themselves as Capitalists and hate socialism.

Social Democracy is probably what you are referring to.

[Lamanov]

yea and stalin was a state bourgeoisie....and the fall of the soviet union wasn't was the most progressive thing the world has ever seen....:tt2:

You've got something important to say?

[BobKKKindle$]

It would be a qualified yes to Lenin's NEP, but Stalin's Russia?

If Soviet Russia was state-capitalist during the NEP period, but a workers state under Stalin (i.e. some form of transitional society between capitalism and communism) then it must follow that there was a social revolution which led to capitalism being overthrown at some point after the NEP had been implemented. Can you point this out to us?

[Charles Xavier]

If Soviet Russia was state-capitalist during the NEP period, but a workers state under Stalin (i.e. some form of transitional society between capitalism and communism) then it must follow that there was a social revolution which led to capitalism being overthrown at some point after the NEP had been implemented. Can you point this out to us?


The answer is as soon as the Proletariat took over in 1917 the Soviet Union was socialist, the rest was the building of a new society.

But it is silly to ask when did this exact moment happen, You can ask when exactly did Bob Kindles become a socialist what exact moment in his life, but can Bob Kindles clearly define what made him a socialist. When did the Soviet Union exactly started to win the war against Germany, when exactly did America lose the war in Vietnam? Its a serious of events with differing periods of ups and downs. When exactly did Polio become cured?

[Cumannach]

This is correct.

The change coming after NEP was an intentional decision by the state power to implement new policies in order to pursue particular politico-economic goals- it was not the result of a struggle between two opposing classes that eventually resulted in the replacement of the dictatorship of one class with that of another. Therefore it wasn't a revolution.

[Black Sheep]

a lil off topic, NEP was implemented in order for russia to undergo a needed capitalist economy phase in order to enter the socialist phase?

Does it always have to be
feudarchy->capitalism->socialism?

Or because of starvation?

I ve heard both views.

[BobKKKindle$]

a lil off topic, NEP was implemented in order for russia to undergo a needed capitalist economy phase in order to enter the socialist phase?

No, Russia had already become a capitalist economy long before the Bolshevik Revolution, and the implementation of the NEP was a short-term measure designed to stabilize the economy after the Civil War and restore industrial output to the pre-war level. The NEP was needed due to the failure of the revolution to spread overseas and signaled the first stage of the counter-revolution despite the fact that the state retained control of the "commanding heights of the economy" and was still comprised of officials drawn from the ranks of the revolutionary proletariat. Unlike other countries, Russia's period of capitalist development was relatively short, and the bourgeoisie was incapable of carrying out all of its historic tasks due to the links between the bourgeoisie and the political remnants of the feudal regime as well as the imperialist powers.


Therefore it wasn't a revolution

Exactly, and so Soviet Russia could not have been state capitalist during the NEP.

[spartan]

You must be American because Social Liberals in Canada privatize health care, decriminalize pot, allow gay marriage, support deregulation of trade, privatize everything they can get their hands on. Social Liberals see themselves as Capitalists and hate socialism.

Social Democracy is probably what you are referring to.

I am British and North American politics are in no way comparable to European politics.

What the Americans regard as the centre would be regarded as very right-wing in Europe (that's why you have Americans calling Obama, a compromising Social Liberal, a 'commie' and 'socialist').

Social Liberalism is practically the same as Social Democracy, the difference is that Social Liberalism comes from an individualist background where liberty and competition from an equal footing is valued, Social Democracy comes from a Socialist background where it is all about the state and the collective.

Of course today both have evolved quite far away from their original intentions due to compromise with the ruling class once they were elected into power by the people.

[PRC-UTE]

If Soviet Russia was state-capitalist during the NEP period, but a workers state under Stalin (i.e. some form of transitional society between capitalism and communism) then it must follow that there was a social revolution which led to capitalism being overthrown at some point after the NEP had been implemented. Can you point this out to us?

No, you've just created a false presmise there. There was a (as I said it needs to be qualified) state capitalist arrangement for a time; a private capitalist sector operating within the Soviet economy under the NEP. much of it were small firms.

However there was a clampdown on private firms and nationalisations occured. There wasn't another revolution (though there were new phases of it) because a workers sate already existed.

[BobKKKindle$]

There wasn't another revolution (though there were new phases of it) because a workers sate already existed. A capitalist economy, regardless of whether it is statified, is one in which the ruling class is a bourgeoisie, defined by its ownership of the means of production and privileged position in the relations of production. The existence of a bourgeoisie requires the existence of a proletariat at the same time because capital is a social relation and the bourgeoisie would not be able to exist without having access to a pool of workers to employ and exploit. A workers state cannot be separated from the mode of production - the political power of the working class depends on its ability to control the economy through democratic organs, especially key sectors such as banking and the production of basic raw materials which support the rest of the economy and prevent a capitalist class from taking control of the state in order to reverse the gains of the social revolution. These features existed under the NEP, and so despite market reforms and limited privatization, the economy was not capitalist. Just as the presence of a cooperative sector inside an economy based on private ownership and class division does not negate the fact that such an economy would be capitalist, the presence of a private sector inside an economy based on state ownership and workers democracy does not change the fact that as long the key sectors of the economy are subject to workers control, the economy is socialist, or at least a transitional stage exhibiting the main features of a socialist society.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bulk Sheep:


Does it always have to be
feudarchy->capitalism->socialism?

In a word 'No'. Perhaps you should start a new thread on this, and we can discuss Trotsky's theory of the Permanent Revolution.

[PRC-UTE]

A capitalist economy, regardless of whether it is statified, is one in which the ruling class is a bourgeoisie, defined by its ownership of the means of production and privileged position in the relations of production. The existence of a bourgeoisie requires the existence of a proletariat at the same time because capital is a social relation and the bourgeoisie would not be able to exist without having access to a pool of workers to employ and exploit. A workers state cannot be separated from the mode of production - the political power of the working class depends on its ability to control the economy through democratic organs, especially key sectors such as banking and the production of basic raw materials which support the rest of the economy and prevent a capitalist class from taking control of the state in order to reverse the gains of the social revolution. These features existed under the NEP, and so despite market reforms and limited privatization, the economy was not capitalist. Just as the presence of a cooperative sector inside an economy based on private ownership and class division does not negate the fact that such an economy would be capitalist, the presence of a private sector inside an economy based on state ownership and workers democracy does not make such an economy capitalist.

There was a (as already stated, needing to be qualified to what extent- ie modest) state capitalist arrangement next to nationalised firms. The existence of a mixed economy does not imply the impossibility of a workers' state. And despite what you've said here, there was a small bourgeoisie at the time.

[BobKKKindle$]

The existence of a mixed economy does not imply the impossibility of a workers' state.Your original answer suggested otherwise. The title in this thread is a question concerning whether Russia was state-capitalist. You answered this question in the affirmative but only in reference to the NEP period, and not the Stalinist period which followed, meaning that the ruling class under the NEP was a bourgeoisie and not the organized working-class, and (consequently) that there was a change in the mode of production (normally understood by Marxists as a social revolution) when Stalin took power. You have since changed your argument to point out that there was a private sector under the NEP, which is obviously true, but this is not the same as your original answer - that the mode of production was state-capitalism during this period.


And despite what you've said here, there was a small bourgeoisie at the time.No, the NEP led to the emergence of a stratum within the peasantry, the members of which owned slightly more land than other peasants and were thus able to purchase machinery and hire poor peasants to work on the land instead of having to do all the work on their own, and, in urban areas, a small class of merchants and entrepreneurs who only employed a small number of workers and did not possess enough economic or political weight to constitute a bourgeoisie. The main point, however, is that even if a bourgeoisie did somehow exist, the ruling class was the proletariat.

[Black Sheep]

Bulk Sheep:



In a word 'No'. Perhaps you should start a new thread on this, and we can discuss Trotsky's theory of the Permanent Revolution.

Did that. :)

[modern.day.cheguevara]

Stalins russia was the farthest thing from communism besides North Korea. Unless what defines communism is building statues of yourself....

[Black Sheep]

Rosa:

property relations cannot determine the nature of the state. You have to look at the relations of production .
Don't property relations imply control and relation to production?
If the people owned the means of production (not in a piece of paper), then they would control them (since they OWNED them) and if they controlled them,then they would control production as well.

I think we are getting stuck in words here.

[robbo203]

The Stalinist regime was certainly a state capitalist regime. The apparatchiks, state managers and so on tightly controlled the state and thus constituted the de facto Soviet capitalist class who collectively owned state industries. The lavish lifestyles of these rich bourgeois parasite - a number of whom were exceeding rich indeed - was a world away from the oppression and poverty suffered by ordinary workers. The vast majority of the population were wage slaves. Wage labour implies capital as Marx pointed out and therefore capitalism. Socialism is the complete absence of wage labour , money and the market (a synonym for communism in classical marxism)as some of the early Bolsheviks like Bukharin acknowleged before Lenin came along and twisted the meaning of the word socialism to equate it with state capitalism. Stalin only built on the inherently authoritarian state capitalist model that Lenin introduced, he did not represent that sharp a break from what preceded him as some on the Left, particualry the Trots , like to pretend. It is the whole rotten corpus of Leninist ideology and all its offshoots that workers need to throw off once and for all if we are ever to make progress towards a real communist world

[Das war einmal]

The Stalinist regime was certainly a state capitalist regime. The apparatchiks, state managers and so on tightly controlled the state and thus constituted the de facto Soviet capitalist class who collectively owned state industries. The lavish lifestyles of these rich bourgeois parasite - a number of whom were exceeding rich indeed - was a world away from the oppression and poverty suffered by ordinary workers. The vast majority of the population were wage slaves. Wage labour implies capital as Marx pointed out and therefore capitalism. Socialism is the complete absence of wage labour , money and the market (a synonym for communism in classical marxism)as some of the early Bolsheviks like Bukharin acknowleged before Lenin came along and twisted the meaning of the word socialism to equate it with state capitalism. Stalin only built on the inherently authoritarian state capitalist model that Lenin introduced, he did not represent that sharp a break from what preceded him as some on the Left, particualry the Trots , like to pretend. It is the whole rotten corpus of Leninist ideology and all its offshoots that workers need to throw off once and for all if we are ever to make progress towards a real communist world

You're lying: the USSR didnt have a class who was 'exceedingly' rich (the highest income was 5 times as much as the lowest, which is trivial compared to capitalist countries). Besides that, the young soviet state did everything to fight the bureaucracy from enriching itself. State capitalism is a term made up by Left communists and therefor myself, amongst others dont accept this term regarding the soviet union. These lies only serve the capitalist cause. So far there has been no Trotskyist party who has dared to take power, making it easy for their followers to condemn every movement who tried to build a worthy alternative for capitalism


Besides that, workers in the USSR and other socialist countries did enjoy relatively high wages, the biggest problem was that there was few luxourious things to buy from the money

[iraqnevercalledmenigger]

Rosa:

Don't property relations imply control and relation to production?
If the people owned the means of production (not in a piece of paper), then they would control them (since they OWNED them) and if they controlled them,then they would control production as well.

I think we are getting stuck in words here.

There is a need to distinguish between productive relations and property relations. There was a debate between these two concepts in the early 1940's in Max Shachtman's Workers Party between CLR James/Raya Dunayevskaya and the Bureaucratic Collectivists.

The thing is that the concept of "property relations" does not make much sense. You could ask me (a state-cap), or a DWS' what a "property relation" is and I bet you won't get a straight answer. The whole thing is just mired in contradiction. "Property" is itself in many ways a relation between different social groups. So what then is a property relation?

More importantly as implied in Trotsky's classification of the USSR as a DWS, can a distinct set of "property relations" be the primary factor in determining the class nature of a state?

God only knows what that distinct set of property relations are. The orthodox Trotskyists are not big on producing theoretical works on the political economy of the Soviet state (L5I and Ernest Mandel being the exceptions).

[rararoadrunner]

Greetings!

This is my first post, so patience, please...but, uh, I've been analysing this very point for over a generation, so let me pour out my first offering here:

If we start with Trotsky's critique of the USSR as "moribund socialism," characterising why and how socialism was hijacked by a ruling claque, that critique begs a couple of questions:

1) How might socialism have been hijacked?
2) To what end? Whose interests were served by that hijacking?

If we turn from the assesment of the USSR by Trotsky to that of Lenin, however, we find something quite unexpected if one begins from Trotsky: when he introduced the NEP, Lenin offered that the Soviet state hadn't yet made it to socialism.

Lenin's starting point allows us to wield Occam's Razor upon Trotsky's thesis of "Moribund Socialism" at a couple of junctures:

1) If the USSR wasn't yet socialist when the NEP was promulgated, how could Trotsky characterise that which was subsequently "hijacked" as socialist?

2) Given that the Soviet Union wasn't autarkic, but in a process of reintegration into a capitalist world-system, how could the USSR not function except as one gigantic capitalist corporate entity: the endpoint, not of socialism, but of...fascism!

Therefore, I submit the following:

Not only did Soviet socialism fall into state-captalism: that state-capitalism can be no other than fascism: therefore, the USSR was fascist...and therefore, despite its use of Soviet socialist symbols, propaganda, etc. was in fact an enemy of socialism, understood as democratic control of the economy by the working class.

If we agree, as I do, that the Bolshevik revolution was a genuine socialist revolution, therefore, we must conclude that Stalin did no less than deliver the USSR into the hands of its endogenous enemies.

Far from being Stalin's most ruthless critic, Trotsky was far from ruthless enough: to have followed Lenin's logic to its inescapable conclusion would have led Trotsky to have concluded that the socialist project must be started afresh, anew, free of any association with the Soviet Union...except to take into full and complete account the fall of genuine Soviet socialism to "Soviet" fascism.

Trotsky's reticence aside, however, he and Lenin did provide an important clue as to what was going on:

Capitalism is a world-system: as such, socialism can be no less. "Socialism in One Country," therefore, is a national-socialist (i.e. fascist) oxymoron, which can only serve to derail the international socialist revolution, hence preclude the development of socialism into communism by precluding socialism as a world-system.

The Russian language provides another clue I'll try to put into understandable English:

There are two ways to say "Soviet Union" in Russian:

!) The older, Revolutionary usage was "Soyuz Sovietov," that is, a Union composed of Soviets;
2) The newer, post-Revolutionary (in every sense) neologism "Sovietsky Soyuz:" the neologism is the invention of an adjective, "Sovietsky," which, as Trotsky put it, "lightly annointed the bureaucracy with 'Soviet' oil."

Yet another light can be shed on the problem if we look, as has been done here, and will be done elsewhere, on the problem of markets vs. planning in a socialist economy.

While some, such as Alec Nove, opine that central planning and capitalist-style markets were the only choices open to the USSR, this is belied by the earlier experience of the Soviet of 1905.

In order to understand the Soviet of 1905, one must first understand that it grew out of the General Strike of 1905: the first successful general strike in history.

The very generality of the strike, however, necessitated restarting the Russian economy on a non-capitalist basis: this was what gave birth to the first Soviet.

This Soviet managed those sectors of the Russian economy under its command neither by central planning nor by capitalist market operations: instead, workers' deputies traded with one-another directly, without recourse either to central planners nor to capitalist middlemen.

This was workers' economic democracy in action: sadly, it didn't spread to the rest of Russia, let alone the world, quickly enough not to be crushed by Tsarist forces.

Fast-forward to 1917: once again, a disasterous war puts Russia on the brink of collapse...a tragedy which provides the reconstituted Soviets with another chance to sieze power in Russia, and provide a secure base from which socialist revolution can spread worldwide.

The Soviets of the First World War, however, don't come to power as a result of a General Strike: instead, power is handed to them by the Bolshevik Military-Revolutionary Committees: the results are far-reaching.

This positions the Bolsheviks, from the outset, centrally within the new Soviet Republic: a problem Lenin, Trotsky and other leading Bolsheviks will wrestle with until death.

Conversely, the position of the Soviets is tenuous throughout the existence of first the RSFSR, then the USSR: Lenin's twin decentralisations, via the founding of the USSR and launching of the NEP, actually reduce the centrality of the Soviets, and increase that of the Party, especially since the Party has had a monopoly within the Soviets since the Social-Revolutionaries declared war upon the Bolsheviks in 1918.

Already, under Lenin, Trotsky, and the early Bolshevik leadership, the USSR was on a trajectory toward fascism: only the spread of the Socialist Revolution beyond Russia, via the joining of strong, indepentent countries to the USSR, such as Germany, China, etc., could have stemmed the fascist tide enveloping the USSR at that point (what tyranny could Stalin had hoped to exercise over a German SSR, Chinese SSR, etc?)

Sadly, that didn't happen...and the rest, as they say, is history.

By the time of the end of the Second World War, what emerged, such as the German Democratic Republic, People's Republic of China, etc. was already so compromised by the failure of the Soviets to master the Soviet Union, that they either fell into the Soviet fascist orbit...or offered new centres of gravity for it.

So, yes, while I quite enjoy the old symbols, slogans, etc., I nerver forget how they were turned against their creators: the Soviets themselves.

So, comrades, there it is, my first offering for your consideration: over to you!

Hasta pronto, y la victoria, siempre, MKO.

[Cumannach]

Capitalism is a world-system: as such, socialism can be no less.

Oh absolutely comrade. But we shouldn't stop there. It is our sacred and honourable duty as the heroic adventuring champions of workers revolution to consider all possibilities in our swashbuckling struggle against the capitalists!

The errors of Lenin and Stalin are gross- to consider that workers could hold state power in one country! Very well sirs, but what about the other countries! They have capitalism! Therefore, above all, it is our duty never to rest until all capitalists have been overthrown everywhere. Otherwise, all the expropriated factories, all the collectivized farms, all the free health care and education and the 7-hour workday, are nothing but great infamy- how can workers in one country work 7 hours a day while there are workers in other countries working 10 hour days? Q.E.D. Hence, Socialism in one country is logically impossible.

But like I said we must go further; is it not also the case therefore, heroic, dashing comrades, that socialism in one planet is also impossible? How many thousands of planets are there in our Milky Way that might have capitalist states? We might throw all the capitalists out of our Planet- but it is a logical error to think socialism is possible in one Solar System. Therefore, according to Marx, space exploration is the chief task of the proletarian workers revolution. Only once this historic task has been decisively achieved can we start to build Socialism. Cosmonauts Unite! Long Live Trotsky! Long Live Socialism in one Galaxy!

[ZeroNowhere]

But like I said we must go further; is it not also the case therefore, heroic, dashing comrades, that socialism in one planet is also impossible? How many thousands of planets are there in our Milky Way that might have capitalist states? We might throw all the capitalists out of our Planet- but it is a logical error to think socialism is possible in one Solar System. Therefore, according to Marx, space exploration is the chief task of the proletarian workers revolution. Only once this historic task has been decisively achieved can we start to build Socialism. Cosmonauts Unite! Long Live Trotsky! Long Live Socialism in one Galaxy!
Oh, please. At least be bloody original (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Posadas) next time.

[Cumannach]

Oh, please. At least be bloody original (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Posadas) next time.

Honest i didn't know. I guess I should've known trotskyites could be that dumb.

[casper]

why stop at our own galaxy using that logic?

intuitively socialism should be a international thing, now the words on why might take me awhile. ( i'll look it up)

[communick]

For those interested in the question of the USSR and state capitalism I would suggest reading Against the Theory of State Capitalism by Ted Grant. I'd post the link but am not permitted to yet.

You can find it in The Unbroken Thread with is available on the Marxist Internet Archives.

[Das war einmal]

2) Given that the Soviet Union wasn't autarkic, but in a process of reintegration into a capitalist world-system, how could the USSR not function except as one gigantic capitalist corporate entity: the endpoint, not of socialism, but of...fascism!

And I thought we couldnt sink any lower when I read Leo's opinions about Che Guevara, people like you are the finest examples of ignorant and naive tools of capitalism. The USSR under Stalin give everything they had to destroy fascism, you should be ashamed, capitalist revisionist mofo

[Woland]

Not only did Soviet socialism fall into state-captalism: that state-capitalism can be no other than fascism


therefore, the USSR was fascist...


and therefore, despite its use of Soviet socialist symbols, propaganda, etc. was in fact an enemy of socialism.


"Socialism in One Country," therefore, is a national-socialist (i.e. fascist) oxymoron


The Russian language provides another clue I'll try to put into understandable English:

There are two ways to say "Soviet Union" in Russian:

!) The older, Revolutionary usage was "Soyuz Sovietov," that is, a Union composed of Soviets;
2) The newer, post-Revolutionary (in every sense) neologism "Sovietsky Soyuz:" the neologism is the invention of an adjective, "Sovietsky"


Say, were your relatives proud members of the SS that you now feel the relentless guilty need to somehow try and cure your shameful inferiority complex arising from your disbelief of their horrendous crimes by attacking the one country which by the sacrifice of millions of its soldiers and citizens, defeated, decisively, once and for all, fascism as a threat to communism and the whole world, the reason why you aren't in hitlerjugend, but now practiced solely by exceptionally retarded philosophers such as yourself, or you completely forgot about the Holocaust, how millions of Jews, communists, trade-unionists, gays and lesbians, Roma and Sinti and Slavs were barbarically murdered by the actual Nazis and not the shallow ideological construct and insult which you presented, or do you know nothing of the actual fascist ideology, about their organisation, class politics and economics that you somehow manage to come up with the most absurd claims backed only by your outstanding ignorance, that you somehow become the perfect anticommunist raving about national socialism being socialism, or maybe you know shit nothing about the ideas of ''Socialism in one country'', in what conditions it was done, what development and progress it all achieved, that you cannot try to criticize it in a decent manner as some others have done in this thread, or are you a complete fucking idiot?

By the way- ''Sovetsky Soyuz'' and ''Soyuz Sovetov'' have the exact same meaning.

[rararoadrunner]

To my Stalinist critics:

Thank you so much for your extremely revealing responses: I am so glad that you stooped to the depths that you did, accusing me of excusing Nazism without a shred of evidence: this "method" is indeed redolent of Stalin's show trials, and I'm so glad you proved my point here!

For the record: no, I do not forget or excuse for one instant the horrific Nazi crimes: I challenge you Stalinists to make an accounting of the tens of millions who perished in Gulags, famines, disappearences, etc. under Stalin. No use trying to dispute the historical record in this case any more than in the case of the Nazi apologists with whom you group me without a shred of evidence: the historical record is right there in Russia for you to find (such as at the FSB/KGB Museum in the Lyubyanka, Moscow).

Nor do I for an instant dismiss the horrific sacrifices that the Soviet peoples made in fighting the Nazis: quite the contrary, I find in those heroic struggles great tragedy, given that the horror the Nazis imposed upon them was compounded by Stalin and his minions!

So, go right ahead, keep on putting out the Stalinist gospel: you cannot escape its implications, any more than a mastodon could struggle free from a tar pit.

To the non-Stalinists reading this polemic between me and the Stalinists: ponder well what would happen if you were to vouchsafe the future to the likes of these: yeppers, absofuckinglutely, they're still around, and if I've drawn their fire, good! They have revealed themselves thereby, not only to me...but to you as well.

One thing that does disturb me, though: evidently, some folks didn'r read carefully what I had to say about Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin: I for one see in Lenin and Trotsky a true Greek tragedy, of great revolutionaries who were swept in a direction they didn't want to go, and fought long and hard to return from that direction to the one they originally intended.

Stalin's another matter: he saw the potential to overthrow the Soviet Revolution from within, and when that opportunity presented itself, he struck again and again, until Soviet socialism was killed dead. Only its hollow shell was left to mark the place of its fall.

That's my take on the Soviet Union in any case: I am open to critique, never to misrepresentation, and, again, I deliberately took point as an antiStalinist precisely in the hopes that I would draw the kind of fire I in fact have: point to me, the Stalinists are pwned! They might do well to ponder whether I have anticipated their next moves as well, before they make them...

Comrades: watch what happens in this space! It should prove interesting and educational...

[Cumannach]

I challenge you Stalinists to make an accounting of the tens of millions who perished in Gulags, famines, disappearences, etc. under Stalin.

I challange you to provide evidence of the tens of millions of people killed by Stalin. And don't make yourself look like even more of an idiotic crank by quoting Robert Conquest or some other closet Nazi. Also do it on another thread.

[Das war einmal]

Lol @ cryptofascist *****, dont flatter yourself you have proven nothing about us, you only showed your own shortsightings. Good job though to allready start trolling in the first post you make.

I am not a stalinist but from scum like you, I'll take it as a compliment

[rararoadrunner]

The "reply" from "red resistance" needs no rebuttal from me, and this is precisely the amount of time and effort I will waste on it.

As to the challenge from Cumannach: indeed the burden of proof is upon me for making an assertion: are you counter-asserting that no such things happened under Stalin's rule...or merely that my assertion is lacking evidence?

Assuming the latter: what evidence would you be willing to accept? What sources would you find credible? I need to know, in advance, in order that my research might be made in a direction agreeable to you.

[el_chavista]

If that was rararoadrunner's very first post he began with a leg up as "junior" revolutionary.
Indeed, Stalin's psychopathic personal dictatorship is very hard to defend, let alone considering the Sovietic Union a "transition society" to post capitalism. It transited no where :crying:

[redarmyfaction38]

What do you think?

no.
it was a deformed workers state, where a minority workers party, forced into suspending workers democracy in order to win a civil war against the power of western capitalism and interventionism, found itself the victor without any victors left to implement the "workers state" it fought a revolution and civil war to create.
stalin was the logical beneficiary of this situation, the influx of middle class and bueurocratic servasnts of the former tsarist regime into the bolshevik (workers party) could only lead to the state stalin created.
it was neither socialist or capitalist.
it had a "red ruling class", the "communist party", however that "class" was available to anyone that accepted the party line, a sort of "equality".
it carried out many reforms that allowed its working class to benefit from health care, education, housing etc.
at the sanme time it carried out show trials, assassinations of of its opponents as "counter revolutonaries" etc.
because of its planned economy it rose from a backward nation to become a world super power, because of its lack of workers control it was consigned to the dustbin of history.
for the moment that is, the worldwide economic collapse, the workers in the former ussr that are still feeling the efffects of the collapse of the ussr and long for its certainties, will not just go away.
the ussr, still, holds out the hope of an alternative to the capitalist crap we are forced to endure, it's just not enough of an alternative.imo

[rararoadrunner]

Comrades:

First off, my thanks to "El Chavista" for the vote of confidence: dunno if I deserve it, compa, but, as President Chavez said when he bravely tried his English on Barbara Walters: "I will try!"

Now to the meat: the notion of "deformed workers' state" is, I think, one of Trotsky's formulations; like "Moribund Socialism," however, does it pass the test posed by a definition of socialism as democratic control of production by the producers? Extension or inclusion of the economic realm in the sphere of democracy? If not, what definition of socialism are we using here?

Please note that few Chavistas claim that Venezuela's socialist: rather, they maintain that Venezuela is a capitalist country with a socialist government, attempting a nonviolent transition from capitalism to socialism (lucky we have a real live Chavista here, to correct me if I'm wrong!)

Again, note also that Lenin, in his introduction to the New Economic Policy, admitted that the Soviet Union hadn't completed the transition to socialism: Stalin, of course, claimed that, subsequently under his leadership, it had. Why did Trotsky accept Stalin's claim?

From the Trotsky I've read, he defended his theses on the Soviet Union based upon the persistence of the Soviets: he also pinned his hopes on them as the basis of overthrow of the Stalinist Party and State bureaucracies. While he may have passionately hoped for such an outcome, what basis did he have in the Soviet history through which he lived, and because of which he died, to believe this? This is why I fault Trotsky for not being as ruthless a critic as was Lenin: had he been, he might have seen more clearly what the Soviets had become under Stalin, and that socialism as economic democracy had long since ceased to characterise the Soviet Union.

Let me pause here, on the point of debating whether the Soviet Union was socialist or not, before we move on to the question of what it was if it wasn't socialist: already, I am encouraged that our discussions are rapidly evolving.

Of course, I also await the response of the one who challenged me on Stalin's crimes as to what evidence of them he'd accept as authentic and valid.

Always glad to contribute, and my thanks for keeping the discussion going: hope my efforts merit whatever favourable notice they may attract, and, as on this occasion, I welcome honest, well thought-out criticism, such as that to which this is a response.

Hasta pronto, y a la victoria, siempre, MKO.