How can the theory of the 'Deformed Workers State' have anything to do with 'Orthodox Trotskyism'? The theory didn't arise until about 5 or so years after Trotsky's death.
Arguably, the theory of the deformed workers' state was implicit in certain works of Trotsky's late period - his letter on China for example. That said, orthodox Trotskyism emerged as a distinct tendency after Trotsky's death, first during the split in the American Trotskyist movement between Shachtmanism and the SWP majority, then during the split of the FI majority between Pabloism and orthodox Trotskyism.
Who is generally seen as carrying on the tradition of 'orthodox Trotskyism' between the Shachtmanists and the SWP, after the split? The SWP I would assume?
Ja, the SWP were the Ortho-trots
That is correct, though one should note that these differences are clearer to us than they were to Shachtman, Cannon and others; as I recall it, the Shachtman faction, the Workers' Party, had not adopted their signature "bureaucratic collectivism" analysis at that point. They assiminated that theory - those two theories actually - later, probably in order to justify their previous positions. The final irony is that one of the few left-Shachtmanist groups that still exist - the AWL - was formerly an orthotrot organisation, and that the most crazily sectarian of the orthotrots, the Sparts, are still somewhat under the influence of Shachtman and Draper.
The theory of deformed workers state is actually quite anti-Marxian, I'm not sure how it could be construed to have been implicit in Trotsky's DWS theory. The idea that a workers state, whether deformed or not, could be established without a sense of a proletarian revolution is really a break with Marxism for all intents and purposes. This fetishization of nationalization among ortho Trots, is so mind blowing and leads to the support of factions of capital.
Well, I think this sort of position - "supporting factions of capital" - is more characteristic of the Pabloites and Grantists, than orthodox Trotskyists sui generis. As for deformed workers' states, theorists like Robertson sometimes do flirt with the notion that such states can be established in isolation from any sort of proletarian revolution. However, I think that a more cogent analysis would both identify the actual proletarian currents in Stalinist revolutions and "revolutions" - for example, proletarian militancy in Yugoslavia, in Hungary and so on - and the pivotal role of the (admittedly decaying) revolution in Russia - how the bureaucracy transmitted the pressures created by the proletarian forms of the economy. And we know how Stalinist "revolutions" go in the absence of a developed bureaucratic state to act as a sponsor - just consider Benin or Kampuchea.
"Arguably, the theory of the deformed workers' state was implicit in certain works of Trotsky's late period - his letter on China for example." Which letter? (Is this it? http://www.marxists.org/archive/trot...8/03/china.htm) What countries were considered deformed workers' states? Would places like East Germany be considered one? How can that be a workers' state? Is North Korea one?
Also, what about China? China is generally considered capitalist, even by many liberals.
I was talking about The Peasant War in China and the Proletariat. And, yes, Democratic Germany and the DPR Korea are usually considered deformed workers' state, since they rest on proletarian property forms but are ruled by bureaucratic castes. China tends to divide people - the Spartacist/IG/IBT/RR position is that China remains a DWS since most of the private capital is concessionary in nature (the Soviet Union also had concessionary capital) and the industrial and banking core of the economy remains nationalised.
I'm ordering Trotsky's In Defense of Marxism today, I've been meaning to read it for a while now, plus I'm finally finishing up the 3rd vol. of the Prophet series (having read the first two right after I was banned but never getting around to the 3rd) so maybe this discussion can continue in a few weeks after I get some more knowledge about the intricacies of the Shachtman/Cannon split in the SWP.
Fair enough - but note that Shachtman didn't split from the SWP majority due to the theory of bureaucratic collectivism, but Finland. In fact, at the time Shachtman held a variant of the bureaucrat-collectivist analysis whose practical conclusions mostly coincided with the DWS theory. Carter originated the more infamous variety of the BC theory.
Is anyone aware of whether Belarus would be considered a deformed workers' state? I'm trying to find info on that idea. It seems like it would be, no?
That's a large problem with the theory of the deformed workers state, in fact I can remember Ostrinski starting a thread about it in the Trotskyist user group before he was banned, maybe check that out. It ends up with revolutionaries absurdly upholding the military defense of anti-worker regimes which have nothing to do with working class political power and neither have had any semblance of a proletarian revolution. This fetishizaiton of nationalization needs to stop and it leads groups (like the sparts) who are normally quite solid on most theoretical questions, to these insane positions. The picture of the spart holding up a sign stating 'defend the deformed workers state DPRK's rights to nuclear arms;' that is the sad reality of the situation.
Since it is a couple of years old, I would be interested to hear if 9mm still has the view expressed in this thread, and if not, why not.
