thats ^^ about right
btw russia fits into my arguement that revolution based on crisis is doomed ..
To be, or not to be state capitalism, By The Socialist Party
- Thread starter TremulousTetra
- Start date
btw russia fits into my arguement that revolution based on crisis is doomed ..
dennisr
the acceptable face
You should not put words into peoples mouths in an attempt to pose your usual insinuations in a new way.Did I say Trotsky 'ordered' this? or Trotsky 'imposed' this? No, I said he raised this as an idea - its an idea he would have had to get agreement on - clearly he did not... As you already know his authority was as leader of the red army.
Your second paragraph is a 'statement of opinion' - not evidence to support that opinion
dennisr
the acceptable face
OK so I say it did abolish capitalism, You say it didn't - I thought you felt you wanted to further the 'debate'?
ok to further the debate maybe answer what i have said .. that is why i gave you those questions which you did not answer .. capitalism was clearly NOT abolished in Russia .. yes the previous capitalist state was .. that is NOT the same
capitalism has existed without a state before and under many political regimes including nazism fascism islamic theocracy in Saudi/Iran etc etc .. neither the baltic trading 'leagues' and the East India Company were dictated to by their regional states, who at the time were NOT capitalist .. capitalism as we saw in Russia post 1917 WAS capable of existence under a 'workers state' ( which i accept it pretty well was even though i do not support Lenin)
you appear to be simply ignoring this even though it is critical to the debate
dennisr
the acceptable face
no durruti - i answered your question. the rest was a list of your opinions
a 'debate' takes two (or more) people answering questions
I agree with everything you say about Tony Cliff's theory of state capitalism. Ted Grant's critique of it is definitive in my view.
The key question in these debates is what is the class nature of these states. This was the question Tony Cliff was answering, it was the question Ted Grant was answering, it was the question Trotsky was answering.
The question the CWI are answering is what roughly is character of the economy of these countries. This is a trivial question. It does NOT answer the question of what form of property the state defends. This is why it all seems so trivial to you.
The truth is both the CWI and the SWP have trivialised the Marxist theory of the state. I wouldn't mind, except neither organisation is interested in critiquing this theory.
Look at Russia today. It still has elements of a planned economy (especially in Belarus for example). It does not consistently defend private property. It is completely continuous with the state that existed in 1920 - there has been no violent overthrow of the state apparatus. Yet it is a thoroughly capitalist economy. It makes no sense to say that the Soviet Union was ever a workers state except perhaps in the immediate aftermath of the October revolution and the civil war. To say otherwise is to say that a capitalist regime can reform a workers state. This is in direct contradiction to Lenin's State and Revolution and Trotsky's Permanent Revolution. Think about it. If a pro-capitalist regime can govern a state transforming from a (degenerate/deformed) workers' state into a capitalist state then a pro-socialist regime can govern a state going through the opposite transformation. Both the CWI and the SWP assert that this is possible they just arbitrarily pick two different dates for when it happened in Russia - 1991 or 1929.
Unlike the CWI and the SWP I think these theories should be taken seriously. Taking them seriously means using them to form concrete conclusions or rejecting them if they are found wanting. Not taking them seriously means quietly ignoring them while paying lip service.
Tony Cliff:
"Interdependence and mutual influence of class divisions and the emergence and strengthening of the state are so intricate as to make any separation of economics and politics impossible."
"As in ancient societies, so in Russia today, the double function of the state, as a guardian of the ruling class and as organiser of social production, leads to a total fusion of economics and politics."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/ch06.htm#s6
Of course Cliff didn't think that the state had autonomy over particular capitalist interests - quite reasonably he didn't think there were any particular capitalist interests.
It is a theoretical necessity for consistent state capitalist (or bureaucratic collectivist) theories to assert something like the above. The theories say that the state determines the economy rather than the other way round. The superstructure determines the economic base. Tony Cliff dodged this conclusion by making politics and economics identical. An idea he nicked from Shactman I believe.
To quote Ted Grant quoting Tony Cliff with approval:
"This does not mean that the price system in Russia is arbitrary, dependent on the whim of the bureaucracy. The basis of price here too is the costs of production. If price is to be used as a transmission belt through which the bureaucracy directs production as a whole, it must fit its purpose, and as nearly as possible reflect the real costs, that is, the socially necessary Labour absorbed in the different products…" (Cliff, page 94, our emphasis)
TG:
"In the first quotation[above], Cliff shows precisely the way in which the law of value manifests itset internally in Russian society....
"Previously Cliff said that the law of value did not operate in Russia. Here he is showing precisely how it does operate: not on the lines of classical capitalism, but of a transitional society between capitalism and socialism."
http://www.marxist.com/TUT/TUT3-2.html
Ted Grant points out contrary to Tony Cliff that Russia had elements of capitalist exchange in its economy due to its internal functioning (Cliff thought it was due to miliary competition). According to Ted Grant it was not a socialist society but a transitional society between capitalism and socialism. The economy had features of both capitalism and socialism.
The theory of the degenerated workers state does NOT say that capitalism has been overthrown (whatever that means) rather it says that the state no longer defends capitalist property relations. Indeed in the early days Lenin proposed that the economy be run on state capitalist lines controled by workers. The Bolsheviks did not have a program of systematic nationalisation. This does not mean that the state under the Bolsheviks was capitalist. The CWI don't understand their own theory.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Sorry Dennis, I have been busy.
What you did agree with nightbreed about was Ted grant critique of state capitalism. You have also gone on to write voluminously on that topic, even ignoring articul8s questions about socialist party theoris. #BUT i repeat, the point of the thread was to enquire about SPs alternative to state cap, NOT state cap. It is you who have dragged the thread on to that topic. [btw, I have no problem with you doing that, just pointing out isn't me that has taken the thread off topic.] I have no problem in confessing, that I may have added to that drag by asking you questions about it, and having a pop at you.
1. I didn't start of thread on my theories of state capitalism, I started a thread inquiring about the SP's alternative.
2. You're not really interested in theories of state capitalism, you've made your mind up that Russia was a degenerated workers' state. [and that is fine with me]
3. I'm not sure I'm capable of explaining to you the theories of state capitalism on bulletin board, it would take too long.
4. To do so would look like that was my ulterior motive all along. [I'm kind of inner no win situation here, you are beating me up to provide you with 'my' ulterior motive, so you can say " I told you so".]
However, I have said from my readingS about state capitalism you have misrepresented/misunderstood the SWS's theory of state capitalism. So to be fair I will explain what it meant by them comments, but I'm not going into a long winded defence of state capitalism, because there is no point.
So what I think you've got wrong about state cap.
1. First we did establish that SW agreed that there was a process of degeneration.
2. Butcher's point, "There's nothing in any state capitlaist view that i've ever come across that denies the potentiial (relative) autonomy of the political - in fact, a good chunk of of them are based on the idea - of the state acting as collective capitalist against the particluar capitalist interests." applies to the socialist workers interpretation of state capitalism as well. Socialist worker definition does not deny the state can act as a collective capitalist against a particular capitalist interests. In fact you're 180°wrong on this. Completely wrong. SW's state capitalism theory specifically makes that point, and even points to examples outside the state capitalist states, such as Japan before and after the war, with the massive state direction of capital.
3. I think you misunderstand what a cliff meant about "the consumption bureaucracy", so you need to clarify that, what do you think talking about? I think this is the crucial point. In my opinion, this is to reason you totally misread SW state capitalism.
4. In my opinion you're wrong about imperialism in post 48.
Sorry mate, you didn't, you cut DEFORMED,ws line out of his post in your quote of him, and it wasn't until post 68you made it clear russia was a DEGENERATED,ws according to the SP. [on that point, why do you think butcher's asked an SW member to explain the SP's distinction between degenerated and the deformed workers' state, instead of you and nightbreed?]
What you did agree with nightbreed about was Ted grant critique of state capitalism. You have also gone on to write voluminously on that topic, even ignoring articul8s questions about socialist party theoris. #BUT i repeat, the point of the thread was to enquire about SPs alternative to state cap, NOT state cap. It is you who have dragged the thread on to that topic. [btw, I have no problem with you doing that, just pointing out isn't me that has taken the thread off topic.] I have no problem in confessing, that I may have added to that drag by asking you questions about it, and having a pop at you.
I have been reluctant to do so because
1. I didn't start of thread on my theories of state capitalism, I started a thread inquiring about the SP's alternative.
2. You're not really interested in theories of state capitalism, you've made your mind up that Russia was a degenerated workers' state. [and that is fine with me]
3. I'm not sure I'm capable of explaining to you the theories of state capitalism on bulletin board, it would take too long.
4. To do so would look like that was my ulterior motive all along. [I'm kind of inner no win situation here, you are beating me up to provide you with 'my' ulterior motive, so you can say " I told you so".]
However, I have said from my readingS about state capitalism you have misrepresented/misunderstood the SWS's theory of state capitalism. So to be fair I will explain what it meant by them comments, but I'm not going into a long winded defence of state capitalism, because there is no point.
So what I think you've got wrong about state cap.
1. First we did establish that SW agreed that there was a process of degeneration.
2. Butcher's point, "There's nothing in any state capitlaist view that i've ever come across that denies the potentiial (relative) autonomy of the political - in fact, a good chunk of of them are based on the idea - of the state acting as collective capitalist against the particluar capitalist interests." applies to the socialist workers interpretation of state capitalism as well. Socialist worker definition does not deny the state can act as a collective capitalist against a particular capitalist interests. In fact you're 180°wrong on this. Completely wrong. SW's state capitalism theory specifically makes that point, and even points to examples outside the state capitalist states, such as Japan before and after the war, with the massive state direction of capital.
3. I think you misunderstand what a cliff meant about "the consumption bureaucracy", so you need to clarify that, what do you think talking about? I think this is the crucial point. In my opinion, this is to reason you totally misread SW state capitalism.
4. In my opinion you're wrong about imperialism in post 48.
interesting
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I was going to get drawn into this debate, but thought better.
no you did NOT answer my question .. if i have been dim sorry .. please state it again .. the question was i believe 'what was the economic stsyem in russia post 1917
but if you think there have been too many your way and i have not answered one, ok, ask me a question?
tbh i think you are really trying to ignore what i am saying here as it contradicts your position .. i have given a whole series of reasons to show that while the capitalist state was overthrown, that capitalist relations were not destroyed .. you have said sure this was not communism .. so i ask you what then WAS the economic system NOT the political systeme but the economic system
Just for the sake of context Butchers was replying to Dennisr saying:
"Ultimately - the state cap view cannot see a state as a body that can have a certain independant existance from the society around it."
Dennisr is not saying anything about particular capitalist interests here. Presumably this question would only arise during occupations of other countries (such as Eastern Europe after WW2). I think Dennisr's charactersation is fair at least with respect to Tony Cliff's theory of state capitalism.
There are of course theories of state capitalism which say that the Russian state has always been capitalist. They would not run into the same problems Cliff does. In my opinion his problems on this question stem from theorising on the transformation of the state.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Y? What are the property relations in Russia? Does the state not defend them?interesting
DAMN!!
Both Tony Cliff's theory of state capitalism and Ted Grant's version of degeneated/deformed workers' states are characterisations of the class nature of the state. They are NOT characterisations of the economy which in any case is constantly shifting. Of course they have implications for characterising the economy but they do not depend absolutely on such characterisations. Neither theory states that the state defends the existing property relations in Russia. If they did neither would be able to explain the forced collectivisations for example.
I know you're not serious but I find the hash you have made of basic Marxist theory of the state amusing. It seems that the SWP don't educate their cadre anymore. They used to be quite good on that score.
yup and this is key to understanding why the revolution did not suceed and how it was rolled back so easyly
the trotskyists are alwasy relucnat to admit that lenin was a massive fan not just of bureucracy ( he thought the Prussian Post Foffice was a good model for industry ) but of capitalism too .. but under 'worker control' .. but that bascially meant bureucracy hence 'state capitalism'
Well the theory is that socialism cannot be built in one country. Lenin never tried to do this. Trotsky maintained that it was impossible. That's why the economy maintained features of capitalism both in theory and in practice. Lenin more than anybody else would have agreed with the above. He was the first to point out the increasing 'bureaucratic deformities' in Russia (which is not to say he thought the state could do without them at that juncture). What's remarkable is how difficult it was to roll back the gains of the revolution. I don't think they've succeeded completely today.
i accept most of that .. but the critical gains, those that were most revolutionary in the sense of workers having power, particulalry in industry, were rolled back far too easyly
Yes I think that's true. Effectively gone by 1921. However there is no great reason why it was impossible that the revolution could not be defended and even extended bureaucratically however undesirable bureaucratic methods might be. There is no principle saying that every revolutionary action has to come 'from below'.
I reject the workers state theory, but more because the so-called workers bureaucracies are capable of power sharing with bourgeois interests such as in modern Russia, China and Cuba. This shouldn't be possible. I think I opt for something like bureaucratic collectivism - Marxist theory is deeply flawed but nevertheless provides a good approximation to social reality, however in the pressure cooker of the extreme conditions in the USSR we can see the theory crack and flake away. Its pointless trying to characterise the state with respect to property relations, except in historical snap shots. However I think the orthodox Trotskyist theory provided the best guide to action. Their theory falls apart with respect to China and Cuba and when the Stalinist states return to capitalism.
dennisr
the acceptable face
Lots of good points in your posts especially 126.
I don't think my limited understanding - which you would have good reason to crirtisise equates to the CWIs understanding though.
I will get back to the thread when I've a chance.
Lots of good points in your posts especially 126.
I don't think my limited understanding - which you would have good reason to crirtisise equates to the CWIs understanding though.
That's a fair point. From past experience the CWI seem to take a fairly pragmatic 'we'll muddle through' attitude to theory (at least after the split with the Grant group). But I can only be proved wrong.
Btw I don't think your understanding is particularly limited, the bit about the state caps not being able to see that the state has a certain independent existence from the economy seemed particularly sharp. It seems related to the theory of proletarian bonapartism which I don't really understand beyond the analogy with classical bonapartism.dennisr said:
Don't feel you have an obligation. I appreciate that you don't necessarily have the time for this.
dennisr
the acceptable face
That's a fair point. From past experience the CWI seem to take a fairly pragmatic 'we'll muddle through' attitude to theory (at least after the split with the Grant group). But I can only be proved wrong.
The sharp points and summaries you made about the nature of the post-1917 soviet state and society are ones which, with a bit more reflection, I find very little to disagree with. The tone is a better answer to what durrutti is trying to raise than my poorly worded 'transitional socialist state'. There was a point there were, yes, I was falling into a crude binary arguement in opposition to 'its a capitalist society' argument which cut across the (i hope) valid points made earlier - and as you rightly say not pointing out clearly the view of the state.
That's not any CWI 'we'll muddle through' approach to theory - much more my own!! I don't think the theory is unimportant or should be trivialised - I can understand the bemusement of most ordinary folk reading this thread though...
It is not true to say that the 1991 date is completely arbitrary though. We use the August coup as a marker of counter-rev, breakup of the soviet union and acceleated process of capitalist restoration from the economic stagnation and widening technological gap of the increasing ossified regimes beginning in the 1970s and the political revolutions in eastern europe opening up political vacuams through the 1980s (Gorbachev's election being one other critical turning point with opening of struggles between different wings of the bureaucracy)
Sadly, much of the theoretical discussions in the CWI are through the lens of the split with TG (partly around the raising of the possiblity of capitalist restoration) - who, for all of his earlier insights was - in my admittedly poorly educated opinion... - not able to come to terms with changed world relations
(ps I would also recommend his material, especially on colonial rev. and prolatarian bonapartism - in the 'Unbroken Ted' - errr... Unbroken Thread - mainly - happy to send you a copy).
Lots of, at least, summaries, online here: http://www.marxist.net/stalinism/index.html
and here: http://www.marxist.net/stalinism/collapse/index.html
Yes, the CWI and SP could do with better publication and profile for and development of its theoretical ideas. Its hamstrung by reduced resources but with the same volume of propaganda and practical work over the last decade, something, I hope, which is changing. it does not have the academic base of support of the SWP.
Anyway - enough of staring at bloody computers for today. Knackered, started at 5 this morning...
I think you are right about Ted Grant, but I think there are good reasons why Ted Grant was getting it wrong. Firstly according to the theory there should have been resistance from the working class to the restoration of capitalism. Gorbachev and Yeltsin shouldn't have had such an easy ride. In fact they should have been more resistance from the Stalinist old guard. I think this is indeed to do with the planned economy stagnating. There was just no way to continue. But I think this is a significant problem for the theory. It was a social counter revolution carried out with almost no violence (that's why I say the date is arbitrary - it focuses on a change in the regime rather than the class character of the state). Perhaps I'm making more of that than I should do.
I also think China and especially Cuba are hard to account for both in terms of their revolutions and in terms of where they are heading. What's striking to me is how comfortable they are mixing the planned economy with capitalist enterprise.
I own a copy of the Unbroken Thread somewhere. Its been ages since I read it though.
Do you have a link for CWI theories on these or similar questions?
You have my sympathy.
dennisr
the acceptable face
I don't think it negates the general approach completely - given the decades long, drawn out process (longer than trotsky or the left opposition could have seen) but, yep, it should be better studied/analysed and more fully explained - how could all the gains of 1917 have ended up at the (relatively peaceful) bourgouis coup of 1991!? Yes, that does need folk with a better understanding than me to draw out how that process occured.
The social counter-revolution was in effect carried through on the back of (in effect "with the weight of"...) mass-democratic movements BUT by a section of the bureaucracy - all in the absence of any mass workers' organisations. There is also the unresolved national questions which came to the fore with all 15 former soviet republics declaring 'independance' , the Baltic states, developing Armenia/Azeri war, civil war in Georgia, growing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. And, the collapse of the once-powerful 'unified' bureaucracy - shown in the inability of the USSR to impose its weight against the East European movements. I think one (undeveloped...) arguement and at least partial explaination is that the break-up of the old state machine was made much easier by the break-up of the soviet union into its component national parts (thats why I mentioned Gorby - who played a big role in opening up this possibility)
It was one of key events behind the final splits between the old leadership of the Militant and the now SP (in effect most of the Militant's membership)
You can follow the arguement on the collapse of stalinism from both sides in those links I put up - http://www.marxist.net - Like I said it is limited in that it is largely through the lens of the split between TG and us.
Unfortunately, the way i put the link up earlier was confusing. It looks like I was linking to TGs writings. You can find plenty of these here - http://www.tedgrant.org/
A wee taster:
"These splits within the state apparatus show that Stalinism in the USSR has rotted to its very foundations. In the past, under the authoritarian boot of Stalin, the ruling layers of the bureaucracy were bound together by a monolithic discipline. This situation has gone forever. The bureaucracy today is scattering into rival factions on a national, regional and even municipal basis, as well as on political lines.
Behind this process is their catastrophic undermining of the planned economy. Recent years have witnessed a disintegration of planning. Rival sections of the managerial bureaucracy are locked in struggle, industry against industry, republic against republic, and even city against city, for scarce resources. Barter agreements between different sections of the economy, bypassing and rendering central planning impossible, have become commonplace. While planning has broken down, no alternative mechanism has been created to replace it.
The splits within the army and the KGB in the face of growing mass opposition eventually paralysed the coup. The army, navy and airforce in Leningrad backed Mayor Sobchak and Yeltsin against the coup. There was opposition to the coup from other sections of the armed forces. Others adopted a wait-and-see attitude, with no enthusiasm for either side in the conflict.
Above all, the generals were haunted by the prospect of a Romanian situation developing. This was a real possibility, as the appearance of groups of armed workers indicates. The open defiance of the workers and youth, especially in the struggle for Moscow, had a decisive effect on the rank and file soldiers and compelled the majority of the generals to back off."
dennisr
the acceptable face
I was reminded while re-reading bits of those very documents (on the split over the USSR) of the complexity. (this was from 1991-2)
"Clearly the ex-Minority have not studied developments in China. Despite the limited purge of the "liberal" wing of the Chinese bureaucracy after the massacre, and a partial re-centralisation of the economy – for a temporary period – the regime quickly shifted back to a pro-capitalist direction, far from re-centralising, are proceeding even more rapidly with a programme of bourgeois 'economic reform'. In 1991 the state sector only accounted for 45.6 per cent of Chinese industrial output, compared to more than 80 per cent in 1980. Especially in the richer southern coastal provinces of China which enjoy a wide degree of autonomy and are closely integrated with Hong Kong, a significant capitalist class has developed. A similar process is taking place in Vietnam and is even beginning Cuba."
You have to wonder how the present world economic crisis will be effecting the groupings within the Chinese bureaucracy nowdays? - Crudely, asking if the 'pro-planning' element of the bureaucracy could even be stengthened for a period against 'pro-capitalist' elements? (especially given that 'planned' economic development has not - I think it could be argued - reached the impasse it had in the USSR + the nature of the present workers movements in China which - again, I think it could be argued - are different to those occurring in the 1990s in eastern europe and the ussr in that an independant workers' movement is developing. All a bit of a crude summary - but hopefully some substance there and a recognition of the relationship between 'state' and 'society'...).
I'd be interested in your views. Anyway, i have to get back to selling my labour for wee bit...
I'd be interested in your views. Anyway, i have to get back to selling my labour for wee bit...
I'll get back to you. I'm going to read through some of the old documents. If I have any criticisms its likely to be about what is not said rather than what is said - so it wouldn't be fair to comment on snippets.
dennisr
the acceptable face
Originally Posted by durruti02 View Post
i accept most of that .. but the critical gains, those that were most revolutionary in the sense of workers having power, particulalry in industry, were rolled back far too easyly
yes i think there is that principle ..
first i accept there have been many bureaucratic revolutions, much of the Russian revolution was and clearly that in Cuba was .. but that ignores the question of what revolution is .. much of the 'left' or @ critique of the Russian Revolution is based in this area ( see e.g. Goldman, Mett, Brinton, Berkman, Avrich, Voline all looked at how the Bolsheviks had NOT carried out a social revolution but simply a transfer of management ) .. and critically that when you have a 'revolution' which is NOT entirely lead by the people ( see Reich ) .. it will be lost all too soon
much of the bureacratic and management of the factories was never challenged by Lenin and as soon as the never abolished Taylorism was pushed harder, as soon as the factory committees lost the political battle with Lenin ( many Bolsheivks supported the Committees according to Smiths research ), as soon as the social and democratic revolution people saw was being rolled away in front of them, faith belief in and support for the Bolsheviks evaporated ..
one of the key ways in which the Left ignore the Kronstadt Revolt is by pretending it was an isolated event when in fact the revolt started IN RESPONSE to a general strike in the massive Petrograd factories demanding not just food but political freedoms ( Deutscher puts it " the call for the Third Revolution began to dominate the meetings, the revolution that was to overthrow the Bolsheviks and establish Soviet democracy" )
so the popular defence of the revolution collapsed post 1917 .. and it was replced by a militarised bureaucracy defending the revolution .. but again the question has to be asked .. where did the money for this come from??? clearly IF WE ACCEPT THAT COMMUNISM HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED ( and we all do ) then that surplus was extracted by what? clearly by more and more intensified capitalist expropriation ..
btw if you have not read this i think this is essential reading - S.A.Smith Red Petrograd Revolution in the factories 1917-1918
i accept most of that .. but the critical gains, those that were most revolutionary in the sense of workers having power, particulalry in industry, were rolled back far too easyly
yes i think there is that principle ..
first i accept there have been many bureaucratic revolutions, much of the Russian revolution was and clearly that in Cuba was .. but that ignores the question of what revolution is .. much of the 'left' or @ critique of the Russian Revolution is based in this area ( see e.g. Goldman, Mett, Brinton, Berkman, Avrich, Voline all looked at how the Bolsheviks had NOT carried out a social revolution but simply a transfer of management ) .. and critically that when you have a 'revolution' which is NOT entirely lead by the people ( see Reich ) .. it will be lost all too soon
much of the bureacratic and management of the factories was never challenged by Lenin and as soon as the never abolished Taylorism was pushed harder, as soon as the factory committees lost the political battle with Lenin ( many Bolsheivks supported the Committees according to Smiths research ), as soon as the social and democratic revolution people saw was being rolled away in front of them, faith belief in and support for the Bolsheviks evaporated ..
one of the key ways in which the Left ignore the Kronstadt Revolt is by pretending it was an isolated event when in fact the revolt started IN RESPONSE to a general strike in the massive Petrograd factories demanding not just food but political freedoms ( Deutscher puts it " the call for the Third Revolution began to dominate the meetings, the revolution that was to overthrow the Bolsheviks and establish Soviet democracy" )
so the popular defence of the revolution collapsed post 1917 .. and it was replced by a militarised bureaucracy defending the revolution .. but again the question has to be asked .. where did the money for this come from??? clearly IF WE ACCEPT THAT COMMUNISM HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED ( and we all do ) then that surplus was extracted by what? clearly by more and more intensified capitalist expropriation ..
btw if you have not read this i think this is essential reading - S.A.Smith Red Petrograd Revolution in the factories 1917-1918
dennisr
the acceptable face
the idea that 1917 was simply a 'transfer of management' does not begin to explain the scale of events or the effects of that so-called 'transfer of management' for many following decades. and what role did the working class play in all this 'transfer' in 1917? - were they simply onlookers to the events? it may give a few ultras the excuse to distance themselves from harsh realities of a revolutionary wave led by a minority of the population in an economically and socially backward country which became isolated by the failure of the spread of that revolutionary overthrow. it does not explain how the working class came to control the state apparatus for a period. There is plenty to critisise and learn from - but the position of the 'critics' you list is simply to condemn. As you know it would take an entire bulletin board of its own to go through each and every argument for and against of each of these self-appointed guardians of workers self-emancipation.
You ignore Knotted pertinant point - what was the nature of the post 1917 soviet state?
while the 'principle' may be to mouth the language of the revolution being 'led by the people' it does not explain the HOW in practice. And of course we all agree on the central role of the working class in their own emancipation if we are going to move towards our agreed goal of a classless society - so what - HOW? - by refusing to get our hands dirty unless all is on our terms?
It reminds me of the type of 'revolutionary' who stands on the sidelines condemning the imperfections of say a 'racist' strike rather than getting their hands dirty. (Because we both agree on the obvious recent example - I hope you can see the similarity I am pointing to here?) Of course a bulletin board post cannot begin to adequately take up all of the matters you have raised in your usual listing but, a quick summary on the comments on Kronstadt; the 'popular defense of the revolution' and the 'nature of the society after the revolution (how surplus was extracted)' - which I think are largely simply attempts to legitimise the main pre-conception - that the 'bolsheviks' were opposed to working class control (therefore: that they wanted power for themselves, that stalinism is a direct heir of leninism, that they were all bastards really and nothing to do with us mate, honest etc etc etc) .
Firstly - the move against the Kronstadt uprising was presicly because of an awareness of the wider movement. Secondly the very 'enemies' of that movement point this out again and again. So your point about the 'left' is factually incorrect (as well as ignoring completely the endless arguments for and against ever since). Trotsky and Lenin explained the reasons for that movement and the dangers - rather than cheering the third revolution from the sidelines and in long retrospect.
Secondly - the 'defense of the revolution' - while the popular support waxed and wained - for obvious concrete reasons. But - if everybody hated the bolsheviks by 1918 - how do you explain the incredible success of the movement in defense of the revolution against 21 foreign and white armies? And by a people for whom one of the mains aims of their original revolution was peace (alongside bread and land) - against the imperial slaughter of WW1? Can you explain that away entirely by coercion? or the need of the bureaucracy to cloak itself in the language of socialism from the beginning?
Thirdly - the attempt to prove 'nothing had changed beyond the management' through a simplistic 'how surplus was extracted' trick - well, how true or not that is and the nature of the resulting regime - is what we have all been bumbling around to discover for the rest of this thread. You want some simple overnight transformation from the 'horrors of czarism' to 'perfect society' - sadly, reality proved much more complicated.
A revolution in an advanced capitalist country such as ours, nowadays, would take place in entirely different conditions - with the experience of the failures of stalinism, with a movement of people who are literate, have many more direct means of rapid communication and have the hindsight of history on their side alongside a technologically and economically greatly advanced society to begin from. Most importantly they would be the vast majority of the population.
You can sit around condemning cobwebs in retrospect if you like. But don't blame the 'lefts' for not taking you seriously by putting words into their mouths which were not there in the first place. I would imagine that some of those who have read and agree with the list of 'untainted' authors you list will be among those who are the best defense of worker's democracy after some revolutionary overthrow of the capitalists in the UK but I hope also that they would have learnt from the experience of applying ideas in practice through actual events rather than just theory. It will be a damn site easier for hem this time around.
I'd be interested in your views. Anyway, i have to get back to selling my labour for wee bit...
I agree with pretty much all of what the CWI say and that bit you quoted on China was a perfectly good point. But what does it say about the theory? OK we should look at theory with a view to understanding events but we should also look at events with a view to testing the theory. Its perhaps hard to see the point of what I'm saying especially as I'm not proposing an alternative. I have to admit to not knowing quite what to make of these things. I hope the following makes my outlook clear even if I lack a coherent position
.---
I want to talk about disorientation and muddling through. I want to illustrate two alternative models for theoretical attitude.
One attitude I will call bourgeois. By that I do not mean concerned with bourgeois issues as opposed to workers’ issues. Bourgeois analysis has vast resources at it’s dispense. It is not particularly bothered about the theoretical framework that it uses. What counts is what works, and as a consequence bourgeois theory in both sociology and in economics goes through fashions. In different circumstances and in different historical junctures different factors will seem important and the basis for theoretical explanations will shift. Think of how Keynesian and monetarist economics go in and out of fashion – neither have a firm foundation but both seemed to work in the right context. This is what I mean by muddling through. It’s not something to be sniffed at. You should ignore bourgeois analysis only at your peril.
The bourgeois can become disorientated but I don’t think it happens very often. Nobody (or hardly anybody) predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union. When it happened the West had the wrong economic policy, the wrong economic theory with which to restore capitalism. The result was an economic disaster – quite literally a collapse. However the point I want to make is that the mistakes were corrected, the nascent bourgeoisie, the western capitalists muddled through in the end. It takes very unusual circumstances to disorient the bourgeois. I would characterise the bourgeois theoretical attitude as being excellent for understanding the past and usually excellent for understanding unfolding events but hopeless for understanding a future with qualitative transformations.
The other theoretical attitude is best illustrated by Trotsky. The best example of its most extreme form is the pamphlet The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International. What distinguishes this is that it is both a very bold collection of prognoses and a program for action. Here we can see clearly the different purpose theory is being put to. It provides a long term strategic orientation.
What is striking, however, is that The Death Agony produced terrible disorientation in the Fourth International after WW2. James Cannon infamously refused to acknowledge that the war had ended simply because capitalism was not thrown into terminal crisis. Cannon was overly rigid in his interpretation of Trotsky's prognosis in my opinion, but still we cannot fail to acknowledge that the prognosis was wrong – the post war boom proving this decisively. Of course the British Trotskyists around Jock Haston came up with a far more sensible economic perspective. I’m not entirely sure how to assess this either
…What characterises this second attitude is the favouring of depth and simplicity. It’s high risk. It’s either extraordinarily prescient (Results and Prospects) or it is just flat out wrong (The Death Agony). I do think it is the way forward and I don’t think anybody is taking it up. Nobody likes the risk of being wrong. This is a general problem with all left wing groups I know of. I wouldn’t even say Ted Grant took this attitude - I would place him half way between the two attitudes.
My general feeling with respect to the CWI analysis is that although it is a good analysis and it is orientated to the working class movement it isn’t really using any insights from the CWI's theory. It is a bourgeois analysis and I emphasise again that this is nothing to be sniffed at. A similar thing happened with the SWP over Vietnam. If they had had any courage of their convictions they would have said that the NLF was an imperialist proxy. But they ignored their convictions and muddled through - however they avoided disorientation by minimising their theoretical commitments.
Similar threads
