Trotskyism or Stalinism?
Barry Stoller
As I see it, Trotskyism, i.e. nihilist utopian criticism of Stalinism,
that is, Stalin's policies responding to political isolation, technical
underdevelopment, imperialist hostility and, subsequently, internal
class instability, died, at least in the U.S.S.R., with Stalinism
somewhere shortly after Beria's arrest and subsequent execution.
If we define Stalinism as EITHER socialist industrialization under the
worst possible conditions OR arbitrary terror, then Stalinism in the
U.S.S.R. was terminated around 1953. On the other hand, if we define
Stalinism as socialism characterized by vanguard monopoly on political
expression, then we must acknowledge that such a socialism can be
repudiated only on the basis of what Trotsky called the 'programmatic
norm,' i.e. NOT ACTUAL PRACTICE but, rather, the literary outpourings of
those whose business is to posit socialism AS literary outpourings.
If, say, Fidel Castro calls Cuba socialist, who REALLY has the
authority---born of practice---to say otherwise?
Furthermore. To call all the Soviet and affiliated administrations AFTER
Stalin 'Stalinist' as Trotskyists love to do (was perestroika
'Stalinist'?) is to minimize the tendency towards liberalization that
provides actually existing socialism with the promise it worked so hard,
under the greatest imaginable duress, to achieve. Aligning chronologies,
by the time the U.S.S.R. reached glasnost, the U.S. still had direct
slavery, open annexation, circumscribed suffrage and ethnic cleansing.
Communists have NOTHING to be ashamed of if they adopt such a historical
measure---and I believe they should. Marx never lost sight of the long
view.
There were few political freedoms in the U.S.S.R.---granted. There are
ALSO few political freedoms in the 'democratic' (capitalist) countries
(especially if we admit that the liberalization of the capitalist First
World is predicated upon the repression of the capitalist Third World
that supplies the former with its wealth). Just like there were few
political freedoms under feudalism, ancient societies, and so on. What
does that prove? It points us in the direction of acknowledging that NO
economic organization (during recorded history) has permitted the sort
of unlimited political freedoms that any of us would like to see. When
we point to the lack of political freedoms in the U.S.S.R., we compare
the U.S.S.R. to what has YET to exist. That's not a fair basis for
criticism.
We must compare the U.S.S.R. to the Western 'democracies' (and their
most un-democratic satellites). The reason we must compare (actually
existing) socialism to (actually existing) capitalism owes to the fact
that comparing (actually existing) socialism to socialism as it has ONLY
existed in the imaginations of, say, impotent literary associations such
as the SPGB (who are proud that they suggested the abdication of the
Bolsheviks in 1918) is a pointless exercise. Of course utopia wins hands
down every time. When we make our comparisons in good faith, in the real
world, however, our comparisons must acknowledge that capitalism had a
substantial head start over socialism. Economic emancipation must come
first, it is a necessary precondition for political emancipation. This
is yet another 'lesson' of October.
Liberalization, like everything else wrought by natural and social
forces, is subject to dialectical movement. Liberalization is as subject
to objective (historical, technical, and social) conditions as the
subjective conditions (ideology) that represents them. As I see it,
liberalization is a political trend that arises ONLY when the productive
forces of a given society reach a certain point of general abundance and
the corresponding social forces reach a certain point of hegemonic
security. Liberal policies (such as full democratic participation) arise
ONLY when a MATERIAL basis exists in which they become politically
tenable.
This is not to deny the MANY positive contributions, theoretical and
practical, that Trotsky has offered, and continues to offer, the
revolutionary cause. Nevertheless. As it has been noted, the work and,
especially, correspondence of both Marx and Engels contain the
occasional racist, sexist and homophobic remark. Such utterances do NOT
in any way negate the GENERAL conceptual usefulness of the Marxist
project (one of which is the notion that the ruling ideas of the age are
the ideas of the rulers of the age). Nor does Trotsky's occasional
idealism (concerning his anticipated role as great man of history)
condemn his many contributions to Marxist science to the dustbin.
However---and here I address Diamond and all other guardians of the
sectarian gospel---it is a dead and dogmatic Marxism that attempts to
generalize the particular and elevate beyond abstraction the human
limitations of consciousness WITHIN the GENERAL (growing) body of work
that is Marxism. Even in these extended July Days, Marxism must not
become autistic. If communists cannot satisfactorily---scientifically---
explain the experience of the U.S.S.R.---and after all this time, it
should be obvious that all the 'degeneration' thesis does is feed
anticommunism on the 'left'---then Marxism cannot possibly be
revitalized.
So, the question. Trotskyism or Stalinism? As long as uneven (and
under-) development characterizes capitalism, socialism may arise,
staggering, from the least propitious material and political
circumstances. It was Trotsky who argued this point so convincingly.
India and Africa provide two examples that the Bolshevik
project---industrialization conducted without capitalists---remains at
the core of the Marxist project. Thus, Stalinism, as I define it,
remains a possibility. And, with it, Trotskyism---as I define
it---remains. As long as the real can be contrasted with the ideal,
polemics will rage---and even subsume the real struggle at hand.
Marx: 'World history would indeed be very easy to make, if the struggle
were taken up only on condition of infallibly favorable chances'
(Letters to Kugelmann, International 1934, p. 125).
oct...@my-deja.com
can you make your mistaken comparisons...? Oh, I forgot, you believe
what the capitalists define as 'socialism.' I suppose you think China
is socialist as well...? I challenge you to site just ONE (socialist)
country either now or in the past that was devised of and led by the
PEOPLE and not some 'vanguard party' or ruthless dictators...?
In article <3A76625B...@utopia2000.org>,
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Barry Stoller
> Get real. Socialism has never existed in the real world (yet). How
then can you make your mistaken comparisons...? Oh, I forgot, you
believe what the capitalists define as 'socialism.' I suppose you think
China is socialist as well...? I challenge you to site just ONE
(socialist) country either now or in the past that was devised of and
led by the PEOPLE and not some 'vanguard party' or ruthless
dictators...?
Ah, yes, this EXACTLY the sort of thing I had in mind...
EITHER there has NEVER been a socialism (read: its nothing but a utopia
so forget it) OR the socialism that history produced was 'ruthless' and
so forth (read: its worse than capitalism---at least here in the First
World where the labor aristocracy is pampered at the expense of the rest
of the world---so forget it).
This contrived pro-capitalist (or anarchist, whatever) presentation of
facts masquerading as a 'choice' is the very thing my thesis attacks.
I say there HAS been socialism, therefore there CAN AGAIN be socialism
AND, compared to the lives led in MOST of the world (the billions of
workers who support the luxury and, no surprise, idealist nihilism of
the First World), it is a SUBSTANTIVE IMPROVEMENT over capitalism.
PLUS, with the proper chonological alignment of comparison, the U.S.S.R.
showed itself capable of a liberalization far more rapid than that of
the U.S. (and its unfortunate satellites).
oct...@my-deja.com
oct...@my-deja.com
see the error of your arguement.
-Octrev
In article <3A772789...@utopia2000.org>,
steph...@mindspring.com
> In article <3A772789...@utopia2000.org>,
> Barry Stoller <ba...@utopia2000.org> wrote:
> >
> > I say there HAS been socialism, therefore there CAN AGAIN be socialism
> > AND, compared to the lives led in MOST of the world (the billions of
> > workers who support the luxury and, no surprise, idealist nihilism of
> > the First World), it is a SUBSTANTIVE IMPROVEMENT over capitalism.
> >
How much is but gradually revealed. First it was that Russia could not do
better that Stalinism because of its backwardness. Now the "First World"
cannot impprove the standard of living of the masses through socialism,
because of its advancedness.
srd
steph...@mindspring.com
> So long as your mind is held in capitalist captivity, you will never
> see the error of your arguement.
>
> -Octrev
>
Now *that* sounds like Dragon.
He is not pro-capitalist. He is a Stalinist bureaucratic collectivist. If
you think that's impossible, look to Flag.
srd
leslie...@my-deja.com
Stalin's policies crushed the healthy and nearly inevitable advance of
socialism in the world in the 1920's and 1930's, lead to the rise of
Hitler, and turned the post-war working classes of the advanced
countries away from socialism and the union movement until just
recently (as in the UPS strike, "Justic for Janitors", and the anti-
WTO/"New World Order"/police brutality movements).
Trotsky predicted that the political revolution would eventually come
to the U.S.S.R. Unfortunately, direct control of the means of
production have not yet gone over to the working class, but who knows
what the PERMANENT REVOULUTION in Russia, especially in view of the
massive corruption of the psuedo-capitalists regime there currently in
power, will bring, in the LONG HISTORICAL VIEW.
Change came to the U.S.S.R. because of the contradictions of Stalinism,
just as Trotsky predicted, and not because Stalinism
represented "finished" socialism or communism, per se. Trotskyism is
still relevent because Stalinsm as a social phenomenon is still a
continuing danger to the worldwide labor movement, in labor unions and
socialist and/or communist parties everywhere, not just in the U.S.S.R.
in 1924-1929 and thereafter.
In article <3A76625B...@utopia2000.org>,
Barry Stoller
inevitable advance of socialism in the world in the 1920's and 1930's,
lead to the rise of Hitler, and turned the post-war working classes of
the advanced countries away from socialism and the union movement until
Thank you for such a superficial recitation of the standard 4th
Internationalist great man of history schtick. Did it ever occur to you
that IF 'the healthy and nearly inevitable advance of socialism in the
world in the 1920's and 1930's' was indeed so 'healthy and nearly
inevitable' as you posit, Stalinism would have NEVER happened?
> Change came to the U.S.S.R. because of the contradictions of
Stalinism, just as Trotsky predicted, and not because Stalinism
represented "finished" socialism or communism, per se.
(1) I would say that Stalinism came to the U.S.S.R. because the
anticipated world revolution did not occur. SOMEONE had to industrialize
Russia before Germany invaded*; care to say that Trotsky could have done
the job with less repressions? And on what basis would make such a
claim? Trotsky's command at Kronstadt? The trade unions debate? The part
of the 'Clemenceau' speech left out of Deutscher's book?** (2) I don't
know where you got the idea that 'Stalinism represented "finished"
socialism or communism'; not from me, for sure.
* Stalin (speaking in 1931): 'We are 50-100 years behind the advanced
countries. We must cover this distance in ten years. Either we do this
or they will crush us' ('The Tasks of Business Managers,' Leninism
volume two, International n.d., p. 366).
** Trotsky in 1927, addressing the Central Committee: 'We [The Left
Opposition], in addition, will shoot this band of contemptible
bureaucrats who have betrayed the revolution. Yes, we'll do it. You,
too, you'd like to shoot us, but you dare not. We dare to do it because
it will be an absolutely indispensable condition for winning' (quoted in
Bazhanov, Bazhanov and the Damnation of Stalin, Ohio University Press
1990, p. 115).
> Trotskyism is still relevent because Stalinsm as a social phenomenon
is still a continuing danger to the worldwide labor movement, in labor
unions and socialist and/or communist parties everywhere, not just in
the U.S.S.R. in 1924-1929 and thereafter.
If you define Stalinism as a penchant for repressive centralized
exercise of authority, I challenge you to show me exactly what part of
Trotsky's active revolutionary career suggests a more peace and flowers
approach. Myself, I define Stalinism as political isolation, technical
underdevelopment, imperialist hostility and, subsequently, internal
class instability---which means ANY name could go in front of the 'ism.'
> Trotsky predicted that the political revolution would eventually come
to the U.S.S.R.
Got a citation to back up that claim? As I recall, Trotsky said: 'A
prolonged isolation would inevitably end not in national communism, but
in a restoration of capitalism' (The Revolution Betrayed, Doubleday,
Dorin & co. 1937, p. 301). Would not this sober assessment apply EVEN IF
the proletariat was running the show?
> Unfortunately, direct control of the means of production have not yet
gone over to the working class, but who knows what the PERMANENT
REVOULUTION in Russia, especially in view of the massive corruption of
the psuedo-capitalists regime there currently in power, will bring, in
the LONG HISTORICAL VIEW.
Here you get something going. It DOES seem probable that Russia, with a
rudimentary industrial base already in place, yet consigned to
neocolonial status, is a likely candidate for rejecting capitalism. And,
interestingly enough, Russia, if it decides to restore socialism, will
promote such a revolution fully cognizant of BOTH socialist and
capitalist systems---the actuality and not the utopian projections, that
is.
> It sounds like you are quite a Stalinist apologist!
Believe it or not, I'm trying REALLY HARD to get past such
superannuated, emotional terms.
Barry Stoller
do better that Stalinism because of its backwardness. Now the "First
World" cannot impprove the standard of living of the masses through
socialism, because of its advancedness.
Because of an expanded labor aristocracy, to be precise.* As I see the
situation, because the circulation sphere, primarily located in the
First World, does not and can not produce value,** the production
sphere, increasingly located in the Third World, must be squeezed ever
harder, relatively and absolutely, in order to offset the drain,
technological as well as manual, that circulation costs incur so capital
may indulge its penchant for irrational overproduction. As Lenin
repeatedly said, the weakest link is the place where the revolution
starts.
* Lenin: 'Opportunism and social-chauvinism stand on a common economic
basis---the interests of a thin crust of privileged workers and of the
petty bourgeoisie, who are defending their privileged position, their
"right" to some modicum of the profits that their "own" national
bourgeoisie obtain from robbing other nations' ('Socialism and War,'
Collected Works volume 21, Progress 1964, p. 310). Trotsky: 'Imperialist
capitalism is able to utilize more proficiently the forms of democracy
in proportion as the economic dependence of petty-bourgeois layers of
the population upon big capital becomes more cruel and insurmountable.
From this economic dependence the bourgeoisie is able, by means of
universal suffrage, to derive---political dependence' (The First Five
Years of the Communist International volume one, Pioneer 1945, p. 58).
** Marx: 'The general law is that all costs of circulation which arise
only from changes in the forms of commodities do not add to their value.
They are merely expenses incurred in the realization of the value or in
its conversion from one form into another... The capital spent to meet
[circulation] costs (including the labor done under its control) belongs
among the faux frais of capitalist production. They must be replaced
from the surplus-product and constitute, as far as the entire capitalist
class is concerned, a DEDUCTION from the surplus-value or
surplus-product, just as the time a laborer needs for the purchase of
his means of subsistence is lost time (Capital volume two, International
1967, p. 149, emphasis added).
BTW, you seemed to have dodged my other points...
> This was the Stalin who murdered Trotskyists--and Trotsky himself.
Like Trotsky was above using a little force.
The part of the 'Clemenceau' speech left out of Deutscher's book...
Trotsky in 1927, addressing the Central Committee: 'We [The Left
Opposition], in addition, will shoot this band of contemptible
bureaucrats who have betrayed the revolution. Yes, we'll do it. You,
too, you'd like to shoot us, but you dare not. We dare to do it because
it will be an absolutely indispensable condition for winning' (quoted in
Bazhanov, Bazhanov and the Damnation of Stalin, Ohio University Press
1990, p. 115).
Remember the Civil War. It was Trotsky who inaugurated the practice of
shooting communists.
> Note first that Stoller the Stalinist does NOT challenge my statement
of his position as one characterizing Stalin as progressive.
I would seriously hope that wasn't in question. With the big picture in
mind, the Stalinist project (1) industrialized the Soviet Union, (2)
withstood capitalist agression during a World War and (3) expanded its
influence (recall Trotsky's approval of Stalin's actions in Finland).
Was this AS PROGRESSIVE as Trotsky's 'programmatic norm'? No, but, then
again, ANY utopian projection makes reality look bad in comparison.
> The great man theory of history is the view that a great man operates
in a vacuum--that he is not constrained by the limits set by the
development of the forces of production.
That is a perfect description of how Stalin is portrayed in the worst
Trotskyist literature. The subtext is always: had Trotsky assumed
Stalin's place, the Chinese Revolution would have succeeded, worker's
democracy would have flowered throughout the Soviet Union and poverty
would have been eliminated in Eastern Europe. I would love to see
something OTHER than a 'programmatic norm' to back up this claim.
Trotsky once said that if any ONE person made an INDIVIDUAL difference
and changed the flow of history, it was Lenin; how hard is it to
extrapolate from THAT point once it's accepted?
> Stoller thinks that Russia was constrained not only because the level
of development of the forces of production locally constrained the
nature of the Russian state in the long run (if Russia remained
isolated) but that the level of development of the forces of production
required Stalinist politics immediately--that those politics were
required to develop the forces of production in conditions of isolation,
and not, as Trotsky stressed, only an *indirect* product of the need to
regiment *distribution*.
That's a fairly accurate rephrasing of my position. Awesome what Diamond
is capable of when he restrains his raging pottymouth.
> He is not like the reconstructed Stalinists, who declare the Soviet
Union becaume qualitatively better when released from Stalin's rule.
Actually, a key element to my presentation is that liberalization was
able to emerge, however diffidently, ONCE the project of
industrialization was carried out and some abundance came into being.
This observation is what emboldens me to 'correct' the bourgeois habit
of 'comparing' the Soviet Union to the Western nations as if their
chronological development was equal.* My ESSENTIAL point is that Stalin
= Andrew Jackson---while noting that the U.S.S.R., by the time of the
20th Congress, was able to soberly evaluate and critique its previous
harsh actions during a period of primitive accumulation, whereas
Americans continue to venerate ethnic cleansing every time they pull out
a $20 bill.
* Interesting to note that the core political mystification of bourgeois
democracy, equality professed for people possessing unequal situations,
i.e. equal freedom to sleep under the bridges, is used to perpetuate the
anticommunist demand for 'equal' comparisons between socialism and
capitalism with all chronological disparities disregarded.
> Above all, he does not want to fight against the stream. Most of what
he writes can readily be seen as a rationalization for swimming WITH the
stream.
Are you kidding? Even a HINT that A TINY PART of what Stalin did was
necessary is TOTALLY against the grain. Ever been to Seattle?
> Radical behaviorism is not only an *instance* of Stoller's swimming
with the stream. It is a doctrine well suited to *justify* swimming with
the stream...
Right. Behaviorism is all the rage across American campuses these days.
Diamond, you REALLY need to get out.
> He gets there by a route that requires him to see the bureaucracy as a
*progressive* new class.
No, the TASKS of the day were progressive---even Trotsky said as much;
that was the core of his repudiation of the new class theories---even if
they were carried out in an UN-progressive manner.
It wasn't a class; it was a vanguard that, due to the unfortunate
PREMATURITY of the October Revolution, had to hold power longer than the
'programmatic norm' promised. If it requires a vanguard to lead a
revolution, as all Trotskyists concede,* then if the revolution fails to
be actually consolidated, then it stands to reason that the necessity
FOR the vanguard remains.
* Trotsky: 'A revolution is "made" directly by a MINORITY' ('Hue and Cry
Over Kronstadt,' Writings of Leon Trotsky 1937-38, Pathfinder 1970, p.
136, emphasis in original).
> Stoller is also a bad sport and is a dishonest political swine.
Ah, there's that pottymouth we've all come to know and love.
oct...@my-deja.com
Russia or a dictator as in Russia. Simple as that. Lenin had no
patience in the people, hence his vanguard socialism from ABOVE and
Stalin was no different than Hitler. How anyone can interpret
either approach for socialism befuddles me. Shows a true lack of
understanding and capitulation to the capitalists interpretation of
history.
Octrev
In article <3A77A68D...@utopia2000.org>,
Louis Proyect
>You can not have socialism if it is led by a vanguard party as in
>Russia or a dictator as in Russia. Simple as that. Lenin had no
>patience in the people, hence his vanguard socialism from ABOVE and
>Stalin was no different than Hitler. How anyone can interpret
>either approach for socialism befuddles me. Shows a true lack of
>understanding and capitulation to the capitalists interpretation of
>history.
>
>Octrev
What does Octrev stand for? Octopus revisited? Octoroon revenge?
Certainly not October Revolution.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
oct...@my-deja.com
once more:
"I challenge you to site just ONE (socialist) country either now or in
the past that was devised of and led by the PEOPLE and not
some 'vanguard party' or ruthless dictators...?"
I'm waiting...?
-Octrev
In article <3A77A68D...@utopia2000.org>,
oct...@my-deja.com
conversation...? Try to focus on the relevancy here...
-Octrev
In article <iadg7tsv4708e5une...@4ax.com>,
redflag
Barry Stoller wrote:
> > Recall that Stalin's policies crushed the healthy and nearly
> inevitable advance of socialism in the world in the 1920's and 1930's,
> lead to the rise of Hitler, and turned the post-war working classes of
> the advanced countries away from socialism and the union movement until
> just recently...
>
> Thank you for such a superficial recitation of the standard 4th
> Internationalist great man of history schtick. Did it ever occur to you
> that IF 'the healthy and nearly inevitable advance of socialism in the
> world in the 1920's and 1930's' was indeed so 'healthy and nearly
> inevitable' as you posit, Stalinism would have NEVER happened?
It is my party's contention that Stalinism was a logical outcome of the
objective conditions prevalent in Russia at the time, the programmatic
principles developed by Lenin and the Bolsheviks and the governmental
policies and structures established by them.
We believe all of the above factors dovetailed into each other and acted
upon each other dialectically. I belive that this causes the superficial and
dogmatic observer to confuse cause and effect; it induces the "blind men and
the elephant syndrome."
For example, it appears to me that you are tending toward the argument
that Stalinism, although in many aspects negative and reactionary at
some point, served a larger historical purpose that inevitably was
progressive. In other words, that Stalinism, in spite of itself, was
progressive.
Am I correct in assessing the thrust of your argument?
Be that as it may, that viewpoint (Stalinism's reluctant but inevitable
progressiveness)was more or less elaborated by Isaac Deutscher in part
in his most excellent biography of Trotsky and later more fully in his
huge political biography of Stalin.
[much other interesting stuff that could be commented on but
for the sake of brevity snipped ]
> Here you get something going. It DOES seem probable that Russia, with a
> rudimentary industrial base already in place, yet consigned to
> neocolonial status, is a likely candidate for rejecting capitalism. And,
> interestingly enough, Russia, if it decides to restore socialism, will
> promote such a revolution fully cognizant of BOTH socialist and
> capitalist systems---the actuality and not the utopian projections, that
> is.
But in the above you seem to indulge in a contradiction. How can socialism
be "restored" where it never existed? Or did I miss something?
> > It sounds like you are quite a Stalinist apologist!
>
> Believe it or not, I'm trying REALLY HARD to get past such
> superannuated, emotional terms.
--
"Nowadays, atheism is itself *culpa levis*, as compared
with criticism of existing property relations."
Access The People on-line by using our
visiting our web page at http://www.slp.org
redflag
oct...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Also, you still have not responded to my challenge...? I will post it
> once more:
>
> "I challenge you to site just ONE (socialist) country either now or in
> the past that was devised of and led by the PEOPLE and not
> some 'vanguard party' or ruthless dictators...?"
>
> I'm waiting...?
For the most part I agree with the implications of your question. I
would respectfully suggest that a less confrontational attitude on our part
will help this discussion progress more smoothly and will probably
result in greater edification to all of us.
steph...@mindspring.com
<ba...@utopia2000.org> wrote:
> Because of an expanded labor aristocracy, to be precise.* As I see the
> situation, because the circulation sphere, primarily located in the
> First World, does not and can not produce value,** the production
> sphere, increasingly located in the Third World, must be squeezed ever
> harder, relatively and absolutely, in order to offset the drain,
> technological as well as manual, that circulation costs incur so capital
> may indulge its penchant for irrational overproduction. As Lenin
> repeatedly said, the weakest link is the place where the revolution
> starts.
>
How large a part of the U.S. working class is in you view labor
aristocrat? Very rough percentage, that is.
srd
oct...@my-deja.com
Barry Stoller
aristocrat? Very rough percentage, that is.
Not so much rough as acknowledging overlapping criteria. One measurement
would be the social division of labor in any given nation, i.e. those
who perform skilled or 'mental' labor---such as only 25% of Americans
receive a B.A. level of skill or above (Statistical Abstract of the
United States 1996, table 243, p. 160). Another, perhaps more
'scientific,' measurement would be direct access to imperialist
superprofits---such as 29% of Americans receive shares including mutual
funds, 401(k)s and traditional pensions (Business Week 1 September 1997,
p. 67). Yet another, more theoretical, measurement would be the
production - circulation divide (production of use-values vs. production
of valorization exigencies)---perhaps as much as 50% of American
workers. And another measurement would be even more general, the First
World working class consumption of commodities produced in nations where
the Third World working class is paid less due to lower standards of
living, thus reproducing First World (circulation) labor for less---a
huge amount of the population.* (And a last, more intuitive measurement:
anyone who has lots of time to sit in front of a computer.)
..............................................
* Capital’s mission is to reduce, as much as possible, the NECESSARY
labor-time required to produce a given commodity, thus increasing the
SURPLUS labor-time from each commodity produced. Cheap consumer goods
(from, say, exploited proletarians in the Third World) insure cheap
labor costs, i.e. the necessary labor-time, for the workers of the
developed nations.
Marx: '[T]he value of labor is in every country determined by a
traditional standard of life. It is not mere physical life, but it is
the satisfaction of certain wants springing from the social conditions
in which people are placed and reared up' (Value, Price and Profit,
International 1935, p. 57).
Obviously the development of capital throughout the world is quite
uneven. The 'traditional standard of life' is conspicuously different
from country to country.
Continuing with this:
'[T]he value of the laboring power, or in more popular parlance, the
value of labor, is determined by the value of necessaries, or the
quantity of labor required to produce them' (ibid., p. 50).
Accepting this, we will acknowledge a dialectical relationship between
workers who produce necessities for labor (located primarily in the
production sphere) and workers who produce other commodities (say,
circulation sphere commodities). As production moves from developed
nations to less developed nations, the relationship between workers who
produce necessities FOR WORKERS and workers who produce OTHER
COMMODITIES changes abruptly. As production moves from developed nations
(where standards of living are high) to less developed nations (where
standards of living are low), the costs of necessary labor-power for the
developed nations are reduced (without a decline in the standards of
living for those workers), hence surplus-labor is increased. (Because
the workers of the less developed nations have been only recently turned
into wage laborers, their new standard of living---under
capitalism---can only be compared to standards held under an entirely
different economic system, i.e. workers may now have higher standards of
living measured in commodity availability versus lower standards of
living measured in family time.)
Marx: '[S]uppose that, consequent upon a decrease of productivity, more
labor should be wanted to produce, say, the same amount of agricultural
produce, so that the price of the average daily necessaries should
rise... In that case the VALUE of labor would rise...[and] [t]he surplus
labor would sink... But in insisting upon a rise of wages, the laborer
would only insist upon getting the increased value of his labor, like
every other seller of a commodity, who, the costs of his commodities
having increased, tries to get its increased value paid.
'But a change might also take place in the opposite direction. By virtue
of the increased productivity of labor, the same amount of the average
daily necessaries might sink from three to two shillings... The working
man would now be able to buy with two shillings as many necessaries as
he did before with three shillings. Indeed, the value of labor would
have sunk, but that diminished value would command the same amount of
commodities as before. Then profits would rise.' (ibid., pp. 50-51).
By lowering labor costs of commodities primarily consumed BY labor,
labor costs can be reduced without laborers realizing a dip in living
standards. This is one dynamic of the current globalization. American
workers are cheaper to maintain because capital now has more areas of
the world to ransack for OTHER workers to sustain them.
Although the First World workers buy the produce of the Third World at
its 'market value,' they 'pay the full value' ONLY in the sense that the
'full value' of a worker's reproduction VARIES from country to country.
Uneven development itself is the cause of the exploitation of the
underdeveloped nations. In this, BOTH the capitalists and the workers,
especially the higher paid workers, of the First World benefit.
leslie...@my-deja.com
inevitablity" is almost the same as, or another name for, Stalinism!
I'm sure Stalin considered himself and his policies "political
realism", especially his "socialism in one country" doctrine. If you
reason that Stalinism was the only "politically realistic" solution to
the Russian Revolution, that would put you in the same camp as
Stalinists. Trotsky acknowledged that Stalinism was an outgrowth of
the unfavorable circumstances of the Russian Revolution, but that it
was an avoidable phenomenon, if a policy of revolutionary
internationalism instead of "socialism in one country" could have been
maintained. Trotsky also advocated his doctrine of the Permanent
Revolution in recognition that Stalinism as a social phenomenon in the
worldwide worker's movement would be a continuing danger, in light of
the fact that most worker movements and revolutions were going to occur
in "unfavorable" social and economic circumstances.
In article <3A77A68D...@utopia2000.org>,
leslie...@my-deja.com
In article <959c36$fqp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Tamara A. Turner
For heavens sake, Octrev, read Trotsky's History of the Russian
Revolution for starters. The role of a vanguard party is not to "lead from
above".
--Tamara Turner
Sayan Bhattacharyya
>> How large a part of the U.S. working class is in you view labor
>aristocrat? Very rough percentage, that is.
>
>Not so much rough as acknowledging overlapping criteria. One measurement
>would be the social division of labor in any given nation, i.e. those
>who perform skilled or 'mental' labor---such as only 25% of Americans
>receive a B.A. level of skill or above (Statistical Abstract of the
>United States 1996, table 243, p. 160). Another, perhaps more
>'scientific,' measurement would be direct access to imperialist
>superprofits---such as 29% of Americans receive shares including mutual
>funds, 401(k)s and traditional pensions (Business Week 1 September 1997,
>p. 67). Yet another, more theoretical, measurement would be the
>production - circulation divide (production of use-values vs. production
>of valorization exigencies)---perhaps as much as 50% of American
>workers. And another measurement would be even more general, the First
>World working class consumption of commodities produced in nations where
>the Third World working class is paid less due to lower standards of
>living, thus reproducing First World (circulation) labor for less---a
>huge amount of the population.* (And a last, more intuitive measurement:
>anyone who has lots of time to sit in front of a computer.)
Excellent post, and one which illustrates, I think, the reason why
the socialist project maybe ultimately doomed no matter how one
looks at it. Socialism in the underdeveloped countries inevitably
leads to Stalinism. The only way of avoiding this course is if
there were to be socialism in the advanced countries at the same
time, but this is not feasible because the workers in the advanced
countries may actually have a lot to gain from the existing inequality
between first world and third world because, after all, they too
benefit from it to some extent
Barry Stoller
Stalinism, although in many aspects negative and reactionary at some
point, served a larger historical purpose that inevitably was
progressive. In other words, that Stalinism, in spite of itself, was
progressive. Am I correct in assessing the thrust of your argument?
Let us consider how the majority of Russians lived PRIOR to the October
Revolution; it was a raw material brothel, barely a notch above the
Third World characterized by intense poverty and desperation. Now let us
consider how the majority of Russians live, now, AFTER the 'demise of
communism'; it is a raw material brothel, barely a notch above the Third
World characterized by intense poverty and desperation.
Now let us consider how the majority of Soviet citizens lived between
1917 and 1991, especially after 1950. Does universal employment, health
care, secondary education and pensions ring a bell? And if these things
mean nothing to you, if they seem secondary to, say, 'political
freedom,' I wager that you ALREADY have such things in capitalist
society---to which I implore you to acknowledge that MOST workers
throughout the world do NOT. Khrushchev: 'Most people still measure
their own freedom or lack of freedom in terms of how much meat, how many
potatoes, or what kind of boots they can get for one ruble' (Khrushchev
Remembers, Little, Brown & co. 1970, p. 457); still true.
> How can socialism be "restored" where it never existed? Or did I miss
something?
Yes, indeed, you DID miss something. To say that socialism, quotes or no
quotes, has not existed rejects practice in the real world for
speculation in utopian tracts or your imagination. Are you such an
authority on what or what might not be socialism to refute Fidel Castro?
The line between procapitalism and anarchist nihilism is a thin one.
Barry Stoller
inevitablity" is almost the same as, or another name for, Stalinism!
I define Stalinism as political isolation, technical underdevelopment,
imperialist hostility and, subsequently, internal class instability. Any
name in front of the 'ism' will do.
Your definition?
> Trotsky acknowledged that Stalinism was an outgrowth of the
unfavorable circumstances of the Russian Revolution, but that it was an
avoidable phenomenon, if a policy of revolutionary internationalism
instead of "socialism in one country" could have been maintained.
I insist that the TEMPORARY (tactical) doctrine 'socialism in one
country' was a natural response to the failed revolutions in Germany,
Poland, Hungary and China AND the increased fascist buildups that made
such saber-rattling too dangerous.
To posit that HAD Trotsky and company occupied the Kremlin instead of...
whoever, the world revolution would have occurred is nothing more than
projection.
Barry Stoller
Stalinism. The only way of avoiding this course is if there were to be
socialism in the advanced countries at the same time, but this is not
feasible because the workers in the advanced countries may actually have
a lot to gain from the existing inequality between first world and
I would not throw out the Marxist project based solely on such a fear.
By all accounts, what I call Stalinism is but the primitive accumulation
known to EVERY new economic and social system. (For example, what Andrew
Jackson did to the Native Americans led to the industrialization that
now supports a far more liberal regime.)
We cannot honestly work towards historical models of social change that
have never existed.
When the majority of the working people in the majority of the
increasingly industrialized world are willing to go through what Russia
went through in order to get through to the other side, THEN the world
revolution will transpire---and possess the possibility of going
further, even succeeding. And not one minute sooner.
oct...@my-deja.com
Vanguard Party was absolute, for the people lacked the class
consciousness about themselves to successfully conduct a revolution.
My point is that like it or not Trotsky was supportive of this Vanguard
like approach which flies directly in the face of what Marx wrote
concerning a socialist revolution from below.
-Octrev
In article <Pine.GSO.4.31.010131...@king.halcyon.com>,
leslie...@my-deja.com
Revolution that Stalin could not destroy, not things that
Stalinism "provided" for the working class!
In article <3A786205...@utopia2000.org>,
leslie...@my-deja.com
rethinking, should the material conditions and evidence of history so
dictate.
Clearly Lenin realized that a spark and guiding influence was needed to
insure that revolution occured, and not just trade union reforms
(Economism). Lenin also stated that it was clearly in the Marxist
tradition that Bourgoise intellectuals (or formerly Bourgosie
intellectuals) such as Marx, Engels, and Lenin and Trotsky, who had a
bit of privelage in society to get educations, then went over to the
working class to provide leadership, as the workers themselves did not
have the privelage to get advanced education or have the time to "study
the questions".
In article <959p0g$sql$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
oct...@my-deja.com wrote:
> What I am saying is that Lenin believed that the necessity of a
> Vanguard Party was absolute, for the people lacked the class
> consciousness about themselves to successfully conduct a revolution.
>
> My point is that like it or not Trotsky was supportive of this
Vanguard
> like approach which flies directly in the face of what Marx wrote
> concerning a socialist revolution from below.
>
> -Octrev
>
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.31.0101311042120.17033-
100...@king.halcyon.com>,
leslie...@my-deja.com
International came into existance in the first place!
In article <EkZd6.462$bw4...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>,
oct...@my-deja.com
> countries may actually have a lot to gain from the existing
inequality
> between first world and third world because, after all, they too
> benefit from it to some extent"
This is wrong. You should have wrote the CAPITALISTS, not the workers,
have a lot to gain from the existing inequality. I can assure you that
the working people of the US do not incourage the raping and pillaging
of the third world as do the capitalists. Socialism teaches us that the
working class is ONE, irrespective of its geographical, gender,
culture, etc. differences. A true revolution that starts here will
spread and include our fellow workers from around the globe thereby
eliminating such inequalities.
-Octrev
In article <EkZd6.462$bw4...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>,
bhat...@engin.umich.edu (Sayan Bhattacharyya) wrote:
Barry Stoller
and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that
section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand,
theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the
advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions,
and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement' (The
Communist Manifesto, International 1948, p. 22).
'It is the specific duty of the leaders [of the proletarian struggle] to
gain an ever clearer understanding of the theoretical problems, to free
themselves more and more from the influence of traditional phrases
inherited from the world, and constantly keep in mind that Socialism,
having become a science, demands the same treatment as every other
science---it must be studied. The task of the leaders will be to bring
understanding, thus acquired and clarified, to the working masses, to
spread it with increased enthusiasm, to close the ranks of the party
organizations and of the labor unions with ever greater energy' (Preface
to the Second Edition of The Peasant War in Germany, International 1926,
p. 29).
Roger
news:EkZd6.462$bw4...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu...
It is not the subjective desire of socialists that lead primarily to
socialist revolution but the inherent contradictions of capitalism. The
statistics quoted above refer only to a short period in history. That
means they change over time and economic and political crises develop
whether we want them to or not.
In the final analysis, all a revolutionary party can do is prepare for the
revolutionary crisis. The fact that it occurred in 1917 was not down to
planning on Lenin's part. Indeed, in late 1916 he expressed doubt that
there would be a revolution in his lifetime. Once the February revolution
had begun it was Lenin who knew better than anyone else what to do about the
situation, but it was certainly not of his own creation.
As for workers in the advanced countries benefiting from inequality that is
only true up to a point and at certain times. At such times those workers
may be very conservative. However, the contradictions between transnational
corporations and the nation states and between the advanced capitalist
states themselves are driving inexorably towards another crisis. A new war
will bring new revolutions and neither can be avoided by willpower alone.
Sayan is an idealist who probably thinks socialism is a *good idea that will
never work*. But it is the material conditions of capitalist crisis that
revives socialist ideas again and again not the other way round.
rab
--
Roger Blackwell, Norwich, Britain
Excite Chat ID: rabhegmarlen1, ICQ 71780619
http://www.blackwell23.freeserve.co.uk
Sean Carroll
>Allende's Chile, 1970-1973.
Russia 1917-1922 ... Paris 1871 ... Spain 1936 ... many parts of
California 1966-1968 ...
Not that there's such a thing as a 'socialist country' to anyone who
knows the first thing about dialectical materialism.
>> "I challenge you to site just ONE (socialist) country either now or in
>> the past that was devised of and led by the PEOPLE and not
>> some 'vanguard party' or ruthless dictators...?"
By the way, a 'vanguard party', properly regarded, *is* the people, at
least in representative form. It should be composed primarily of the
most radical and intelligent members of the proletariat and fully
devoted to keeping the workers in control of their own State.
--Sean
Barry Stoller
Revolution that Stalin could not destroy, not things that Stalinism
"provided" for the working class!
Was the Soviet Union industrialized by 1923? Was it ready AT THAT POINT
to withstand World War Two? Had it the hydrogen bomb and the world's
first nuclear energy plant, two signs of keeping up with the West, by
1923?
Barry Stoller
the raping and pillaging of the third world as do the capitalists.
Where were you during the Gulf War?
> Socialism teaches us that the working class is ONE, irrespective of
its geographical, gender, culture, etc. differences.
If that were only so, then socialism would have happened hundreds of
years ago.
Engels: 'You ask what the English workers think about colonial policy.
Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general: the same
as what the bourgeois think. There is no workers’ party here, there are
only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the
feast of England's monopoly of the world market and the colonies' (Marx
& Engels' Selected Correspondence, International 1936, p. 399).
leslie...@my-deja.com
Germany in the 1930's was largely a result of Stalinist sabotage and
inaction, due to Stalin defending his bureacracy in the face of the
challenges from real, vital workers movements! Trotsky advocated
continued permanent international revolution as the only long-term
solution to defend the U.S.S.R. and the gains of the October Revolution.
This "temporary" Stalinist tactic of "socialism in one country" was by
no means temporary; it became a permanent fixture of Soviet policies
until the end. No political movement or revolution that received help
from Moscow got it unless concessions and favors of some sort were
granted the U.S.S.R. and its bureaucracy.
In article <3A7865FB...@utopia2000.org>,
leslie...@my-deja.com
days of Andrew Jackson, as a result of its increasing trend toward
imperialism and the emerging neo-facist "New World Order" of global
corporate capitalism, of which the U.S. is the headquarters and world
military police! Remember what George Washington said warning about
foreign entanglements in his "Farewell Address"?
You seem to advocate a veiled version of Social Darwinism in your
analysis, the very thing Marxists and Trotskyists should be fighting
against.
In article <3A78695A...@utopia2000.org>,
leslie...@my-deja.com
this in "What is To Be Done". This means publishing a newspaper and
reporting to the working class the contradictions and inequalities of
capitalism and putting forward the ideas of unionism, revolution, and a
working class political party.
In article <959r5k$ud7$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
steph...@mindspring.com
<ba...@utopia2000.org> wrote:
> > How large a part of the U.S. working class is in you view labor
> aristocrat? Very rough percentage, that is.
>
> Not so much rough as acknowledging overlapping criteria. One measurement
> would be the social division of labor in any given nation, i.e. those
> who perform skilled or 'mental' labor---such as only 25% of Americans
> receive a B.A. level of skill or above (Statistical Abstract of the
> United States 1996, table 243, p. 160). Another, perhaps more
> 'scientific,' measurement would be direct access to imperialist
> superprofits---such as 29% of Americans receive shares including mutual
> funds, 401(k)s and traditional pensions (Business Week 1 September 1997,
> p. 67). Yet another, more theoretical, measurement would be the
> production - circulation divide (production of use-values vs. production
> of valorization exigencies)---perhaps as much as 50% of American
> workers. And another measurement would be even more general, the First
> World working class consumption of commodities produced in nations where
> the Third World working class is paid less due to lower standards of
> living, thus reproducing First World (circulation) labor for less---a
> huge amount of the population.* (And a last, more intuitive measurement:
> anyone who has lots of time to sit in front of a computer.)
The Leninist concept of a labor aristocracy is access to a substantial
share capitalist super-profits. How to measure it? I am afraid the proper
measure is even more theoretical. It is what portion of the working class
should be predicted to be worse off after an international revolution than
before.*
In embracing as one standard the last standard you mention, you would
arrive, taking that standard alone, at a theory different from Lenin's
weakest link thesis. (Forgive my presumptuousness in stating that I am
fairly confident you embrace the last as most indicative--confident enough
that your denial would not persuade me.) You would then arrive at a theory
more like Mao Tse-tung's theory of the periphery and the center. Whareas
Lenin saw that a revolution could (probably would and did) break out in
the weakest link, the Maoist theory held that revolution in the
imperialist world must be preceded by revolution in all or almost all of
the neo-colonies, which support the working class in the imperialist
countries in their inflated living standards.)
* That is the most politically relevant way to measure it. The most
*apparently* direct measure is that part of the working class that
receives greater than the value of its labor power, that value being the
wealth required for the worker to continue life, support children, and pay
for the acquisition of necessary skills. Since Third World workers receive
enough, some of the time, to reproduce themselves, this measure would
place the greater part of the U.S. working class in the labor aristocracy.
But, that ignores that this standard of living was *wrested* from the
employers. If that standard of living is attributed to the
super-exploitation of the Third World, it would imply that industrial
unionism was a movement against the Third World.
Care to hazard a guess employing the theoretical measure in my first paragraph?
srd
Barry Stoller
days of Andrew Jackson, as a result of its increasing trend toward
imperialism and the emerging neo-facist "New World Order" of global
corporate capitalism, of which the U.S. is the headquarters and world
military police!
Ummm, not from the perspective of blacks who were slaves; women who
couldn't vote; or Native Americans who were exterminated.
Barry Stoller
Germany in the 1930's was largely a result of Stalinist sabotage and
Hmmm, if 50 dudes in Russia could thwart ALL THAT 'revolutionary
potential,' are you sure the 'potential' was really there?
> This "temporary" Stalinist tactic of "socialism in one country" was by
no means temporary; it became a permanent fixture of Soviet policies
until the end.
Never heard of the Eastern bloc?
steph...@mindspring.com
> news:EkZd6.462$bw4...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu...
> >
> > the socialist project maybe ultimately doomed no matter how one
> > looks at it. Socialism in the underdeveloped countries inevitably
> > leads to Stalinism. The only way of avoiding this course is if
> > there were to be socialism in the advanced countries at the same
> > time, but this is not feasible because the workers in the advanced
> > countries may actually have a lot to gain from the existing inequality
> > between first world and third world because, after all, they too
> > benefit from it to some extent
I think your reasoning is precisely correct, based on Stoller's
assumptions. Which is why those assumption ought to be scrutinized
severely when warraned, and fought tooth and nail if necessary.
Many "socialists" view international as some immediate sharing of wealth
among all on an international scale. Whereas the working class in power
can be expected to be generous in extending aid to the former
neo-colonies, they cannot be expected to submit to a lowering of their own
standard of living. This is why Trotsky wrote, even before the second
world war, that communists must show the Americian workers tha under
socialism they will be able to purchase more neckties. (Imagine the howls
of sexism from the pc 'socialists' today). Socialism is not an appeal to
charity; it is an appeal to self-interest, where the self identifies
substantially with the class.
Is it the case that eliminating the economic exploitation of the
neo-colonies (that much ought to be expected) will lower the standard of
living in the imperialist countries? Purportedly Marxist economic analyses
of this subject conflict, often within the same analysis. The liberation
of the neo-colonies means the elimination of super-exploitation, and with
it the capacity to bribe some certain portion of the working class. But,
elimination of the super-exploitation of the neo-colonies means that
wealth which otherwise would have been exported to the neo-colonies
remains in the formerly imperialist countries, at least in substantial
measure.
The theory of how super-exploitation leads to a labor aristocracy was not
laid out terribly well by Lenin. (It is little wonder that the Leninist
work Proyect thinks most shows Lenin's theoretical abilities is probably
his most poorly thought through. Proyect should despise, and probably
secretly does, Lenin's'best and most theory-driven work, "The State and
Revolution.") Supposedly, facing declining profits at home, the
capitalists export capital, obtain an exceptional rate of profit, which
they then use part of to bribe a section of the working class. A problem,
among others, is why would the bourgeoisie have greater room to maneuver
when it was fighting to maintain the *status quo* with respect to profits,
through the export of capital.
The phenomenon Lenin was addressing with his theory of the labor
aristocracy was the connection be opportunism in the labor movement with
the rise of monopoly capitalism. But, pace Lenin, the source of the
super-profits supporting the labor aristocracy is the monopoly rents
capital accrues by virtue of the domination of the world by finance
capital.
srd
steph...@mindspring.com
<ba...@utopia2000.org> wrote:
> Hmmm, if 50 dudes in Russia could thwart ALL THAT 'revolutionary
> potential,' are you sure the 'potential' was really there?
>
You seem to think you are arguing from shared assumptions. The Trotskyist
view of what a small group of people can do is not some exceptional
position on Russia. The Trotskyist tendencies all believe that if their
line is right, they can be decisive in changing history. I believe it too,
except I think it more difficult than most to get the right line. (If one
didn't believe this, what would be the motive for political activism? A
moral commitment to doing right?)
Let me put it to you this way, in hope you will see the counter-example to
position that only by embracing a great man theory can one embrace a
theory where a "great men" are decisive. What do you think would have
happened in Russia in the early 20th century had there been no Lenin,
Trotsky, Bukharin, Kamenev, and Zinoviev? Can you claim it is unMarxist to
see their contribution as decisive.
You are ambiguous on a crucial point. You want to say (1) the objective
conditions in Russia could lead only to bureaucratic rule, and it is a
great man theory to think otherwise. But then you defend this position in
part by arguing (2) that a few men cannot change the course of history.
One wonders whether your views about Russia really driven by (2), by (1)
or by both.
srd
steph...@mindspring.com
<ba...@utopia2000.org> wrote:
> Actually, a key element to my presentation is that liberalization was
> able to emerge, however diffidently, ONCE the project of
> industrialization was carried out and some abundance came into being.
You earlier argued that the reintroduction of capitalism was due to the
defeat of the socialist project--that even a workers democracy might have
seen fit to reintroduce capitalism. You cited in Trotsky, who had written
that in the end the outcome of the competition between socialism and
capitalism will be decided by the productivity of labor. But now you say
that liberalization was a token of an improved competitive position--yet
its result was defeat. Why would emonomic advance allow social advance,
but then foreshadow a defeat, such as was never contemplated under Stalin?
If the improved competitive position reduced the need for the bureaucracy
to substitute for a class, it should even more so reduce the drive to
reinstitute an overtly class society.
>
> > Above all, he does not want to fight against the stream. Most of what
> he writes can readily be seen as a rationalization for swimming WITH the
> stream.
>
> Are you kidding? Even a HINT that A TINY PART of what Stalin did was
> necessary is TOTALLY against the grain. Ever been to Seattle?
"Against the stream" means not only (or even mainly) against popular
opinion. It means also against the short-term success. That is to say, it
is opposed both forms of pragmatism.
>
> > Radical behaviorism is not only an *instance* of Stoller's swimming
> with the stream. It is a doctrine well suited to *justify* swimming with
> the stream...
>
> Right. Behaviorism is all the rage across American campuses these days.
> Diamond, you REALLY need to get out.
>
Whereas radical behaviorism has been tossed by experimental psychologists,
it continues to be a strong force in clinical psychology.
srd
Christian Camacho
: I would not throw out the Marxist project based solely on such a fear.
Here's a slogan we should all try to agrre on:
"Don't throw out the Marxist baby with the Leninist bathwater."
--
"Nowadays, atheism is itself *culpa levis*, as compared
with criticism of existing property relations."
Access The People on-line by using our
gopher on the Internet at gopher://gopher.slp.org:7019/
Access our web page at http://www.slp.org
Bert Byfield
>Russia or a dictator as in Russia. Simple as that. Lenin had no
>patience in the people, hence his vanguard socialism from ABOVE and
Without the organization of professional revolutionaries, there is no
revolution. The workers do not have the focus and the insight to seize
power on their own.
>Stalin was no different than Hitler. How anyone can interpret
True, but then it's the same with Lenin and Trotsky, so on. Hitler was
not unique, fer sure.
>either approach for socialism befuddles me. Shows a true lack of
>understanding and capitulation to the capitalists interpretation of
>history.
Lots of lacking of historical knowledge and understanding in this
place, lots.
Bert Byfield
>Revolution for starters. The role of a vanguard party is not to "lead from
>above".
You must be some sort of Menshevik to say such a thing. All the
important communists of the world have agreed with Lenin that a
revolution needs leadership.
Christian Camacho
: Clearly Lenin realized that a spark and guiding influence was needed to
: insure that revolution occured, and not just trade union reforms
: (Economism). Lenin also stated that it was clearly in the Marxist
: tradition that Bourgoise intellectuals (or formerly Bourgosie
: intellectuals) such as Marx, Engels, and Lenin and Trotsky, who had a
: bit of privelage in society to get educations, then went over to the
: working class to provide leadership, as the workers themselves did not
: have the privelage to get advanced education or have the time to "study
: the questions".
This is such horseshit! Neither Marx nor Engels ever presumed to
provide "leadership" to the workers. Such concepts were alien
to them. In fact, their rejection of the traditional bourgeois
conception of leadership--a concept so dear to Leninist dogma--
aquired more clarity during Marx and Engel's struggle against
Bakunin's attempts to commandeer the International.
Read the correspondence and essays of the period by both men
and how they unequivocally came down on the side of a radically
different conception of leadership.
steph...@mindspring.com
Camacho) wrote:
> This is such horseshit! Neither Marx nor Engels ever presumed to
> provide "leadership" to the workers. Such concepts were alien
> to them. In fact, their rejection of the traditional bourgeois
> conception of leadership--a concept so dear to Leninist dogma--
> aquired more clarity during Marx and Engel's struggle against
> Bakunin's attempts to commandeer the International.
>
> Read the correspondence and essays of the period by both men
> and how they unequivocally came down on the side of a radically
> different conception of leadership.
>
Which essays? Quote the relevant passages, or at least paraphrase them.
I doubt your comprehension of their thought on this matter is any clearer
than your exposition, in which you have them both declining to provide
leadership, and offering leadership of a different kind. Or, are you
saying they favored a different kind of leadership, in which they played
no part? Then why were they in the First International?
srd
leslie...@my-deja.com
and political difference is quite clear.
In article <tl4h7tchjoeotor6v...@4ax.com>,
John Ayers
between those two terms) about the Soviet Union. If you want to learn what
real socialism is go to www.worldsocialism.org/canada/
For real socialism,
John Ayers
Barry Stoller wrote:
> As I see it, Trotskyism, i.e. nihilist utopian criticism of Stalinism,
> that is, Stalin's policies responding to political isolation, technical
> underdevelopment, imperialist hostility and, subsequently, internal
> class instability, died, at least in the U.S.S.R., with Stalinism
> somewhere shortly after Beria's arrest and subsequent execution.
>
> If we define Stalinism as EITHER socialist industrialization under the
> worst possible conditions OR arbitrary terror, then Stalinism in the
> U.S.S.R. was terminated around 1953. On the other hand, if we define
> Stalinism as socialism characterized by vanguard monopoly on political
> expression, then we must acknowledge that such a socialism can be
> repudiated only on the basis of what Trotsky called the 'programmatic
> norm,' i.e. NOT ACTUAL PRACTICE but, rather, the literary outpourings of
> those whose business is to posit socialism AS literary outpourings.
>
> If, say, Fidel Castro calls Cuba socialist, who REALLY has the
> authority---born of practice---to say otherwise?
>
> Furthermore. To call all the Soviet and affiliated administrations AFTER
> Stalin 'Stalinist' as Trotskyists love to do (was perestroika
> 'Stalinist'?) is to minimize the tendency towards liberalization that
> provides actually existing socialism with the promise it worked so hard,
> under the greatest imaginable duress, to achieve. Aligning chronologies,
> by the time the U.S.S.R. reached glasnost, the U.S. still had direct
> slavery, open annexation, circumscribed suffrage and ethnic cleansing.
> Communists have NOTHING to be ashamed of if they adopt such a historical
> measure---and I believe they should. Marx never lost sight of the long
> view.
>
> There were few political freedoms in the U.S.S.R.---granted. There are
> ALSO few political freedoms in the 'democratic' (capitalist) countries
> (especially if we admit that the liberalization of the capitalist First
> World is predicated upon the repression of the capitalist Third World
> that supplies the former with its wealth). Just like there were few
> political freedoms under feudalism, ancient societies, and so on. What
> does that prove? It points us in the direction of acknowledging that NO
> economic organization (during recorded history) has permitted the sort
> of unlimited political freedoms that any of us would like to see. When
> we point to the lack of political freedoms in the U.S.S.R., we compare
> the U.S.S.R. to what has YET to exist. That's not a fair basis for
> criticism.
>
> We must compare the U.S.S.R. to the Western 'democracies' (and their
> most un-democratic satellites). The reason we must compare (actually
> existing) socialism to (actually existing) capitalism owes to the fact
> that comparing (actually existing) socialism to socialism as it has ONLY
> existed in the imaginations of, say, impotent literary associations such
> as the SPGB (who are proud that they suggested the abdication of the
> Bolsheviks in 1918) is a pointless exercise. Of course utopia wins hands
> down every time. When we make our comparisons in good faith, in the real
> world, however, our comparisons must acknowledge that capitalism had a
> substantial head start over socialism. Economic emancipation must come
> first, it is a necessary precondition for political emancipation. This
> is yet another 'lesson' of October.
>
> Liberalization, like everything else wrought by natural and social
> forces, is subject to dialectical movement. Liberalization is as subject
> to objective (historical, technical, and social) conditions as the
> subjective conditions (ideology) that represents them. As I see it,
> liberalization is a political trend that arises ONLY when the productive
> forces of a given society reach a certain point of general abundance and
> the corresponding social forces reach a certain point of hegemonic
> security. Liberal policies (such as full democratic participation) arise
> ONLY when a MATERIAL basis exists in which they become politically
> tenable.
>
> This is not to deny the MANY positive contributions, theoretical and
> practical, that Trotsky has offered, and continues to offer, the
> revolutionary cause. Nevertheless. As it has been noted, the work and,
> especially, correspondence of both Marx and Engels contain the
> occasional racist, sexist and homophobic remark. Such utterances do NOT
> in any way negate the GENERAL conceptual usefulness of the Marxist
> project (one of which is the notion that the ruling ideas of the age are
> the ideas of the rulers of the age). Nor does Trotsky's occasional
> idealism (concerning his anticipated role as great man of history)
> condemn his many contributions to Marxist science to the dustbin.
>
> However---and here I address Diamond and all other guardians of the
> sectarian gospel---it is a dead and dogmatic Marxism that attempts to
> generalize the particular and elevate beyond abstraction the human
> limitations of consciousness WITHIN the GENERAL (growing) body of work
> that is Marxism. Even in these extended July Days, Marxism must not
> become autistic. If communists cannot satisfactorily---scientifically---
> explain the experience of the U.S.S.R.---and after all this time, it
> should be obvious that all the 'degeneration' thesis does is feed
> anticommunism on the 'left'---then Marxism cannot possibly be
> revitalized.
>
> So, the question. Trotskyism or Stalinism? As long as uneven (and
> under-) development characterizes capitalism, socialism may arise,
> staggering, from the least propitious material and political
> circumstances. It was Trotsky who argued this point so convincingly.
> India and Africa provide two examples that the Bolshevik
> project---industrialization conducted without capitalists---remains at
> the core of the Marxist project. Thus, Stalinism, as I define it,
> remains a possibility. And, with it, Trotskyism---as I define
> it---remains. As long as the real can be contrasted with the ideal,
> polemics will rage---and even subsume the real struggle at hand.
>
> Marx: 'World history would indeed be very easy to make, if the struggle
> were taken up only on condition of infallibly favorable chances'
> (Letters to Kugelmann, International 1934, p. 125).
Christian Camacho
: The revolution can be hastened by agitation. Lenin was clear about
: this in "What is To Be Done". This means publishing a newspaper and
: reporting to the working class the contradictions and inequalities of
: capitalism and putting forward the ideas of unionism, revolution, and a
: working class political party.
Damn! You just articulated in general terms the tactics of
my party.
leslie...@my-deja.com
policy of the "Popular Front", which was to collaborate with
"Bourgoise-Democratic" parties against the Trotskyists. This policy
lead to the rise of Hitler because the Communist Party in Germany was
busy purging Trotskyists and ignoring Hitler, allowing Hitler to gain
power. In China, Mao was instructed by Stalin, following the same
"Popular Front" collaborationist strategy, which allowed Chiang Kai Shek
to turn his Nationalist forces against the revolutionary workers of
Shanghai in a back-stabbing manuever in 1927, and which lead to the
storied "Long March" of the Chinese Communist Party into the hinterlands
of China. In Spain, while Mussolini and Hitler provided men, materials,
and planes to the hilt to Franco, Stalin waffled on providing aid to the
Republicans, and even sent the GPU into Spain to assasinate
revolutionary Spanish leaders that might threaten Stalin's "leadership"
of the Russian and world Proletariat. Of the few military advisors
Stalin sent to the Republican cause, many were recalled and liquidated
in the purges of the mid-1930's.
The Eastern Bloc arose because the partisans against the Nazis in
Eastern Europe were chiefly native Communist movements in those
countries. After the war, Stalin cobbled them together into the Eastern
Bloc and insisted on Russian domination of their policies. The only
country to resist this was Marshall Tito's Yugoslavia, and Stalin
plotted to invade Yugoslavia and to assasinate Tito, but was
unsuccessful.
In article <3A7886C3...@utopia2000.org>,
steph...@mindspring.com
Camacho) wrote:
> leslie...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : The revolution can be hastened by agitation. Lenin was clear about
> : this in "What is To Be Done". This means publishing a newspaper and
> : reporting to the working class the contradictions and inequalities of
> : capitalism and putting forward the ideas of unionism, revolution, and a
> : working class political party.
>
> Damn! You just articulated in general terms the tactics of
> my party.
Great minds think alike.
srd
Christian Camacho
: The only
: country to resist this was Marshall Tito's Yugoslavia, and Stalin
: plotted to invade Yugoslavia and to assasinate Tito, but was
: unsuccessful.
"Unsuccessful" in plotting or invasion?
Barry Stoller
post...
> You earlier argued that the reintroduction of capitalism was due to
the defeat of the socialist project--that even a workers democracy might
have seen fit to reintroduce capitalism. You cited in Trotsky, who had
written that in the end the outcome of the competition between socialism
and capitalism will be decided by the productivity of labor. But now you
say that liberalization was a token of an improved competitive
position--yet its result was defeat. Why would emonomic advance allow
social advance, but then foreshadow a defeat, such as was never
contemplated under Stalin?
Both systems, capitalism and socialism, require global, or near-global
hegemony in which to operate. From there, the similarities end or, more
precisely, become inverse. Capitalism's increasing abundance, upon which
political liberalization depends, necessitates more and more
underdeveloped nations to bring under its influence (in this case, under
a basis of exploitation). Socialism's increasing abundance, upon which
political liberalization also depends, necessitates more and more
developed nations, or at the very least development in general, to bring
under its influence (in this case, under a basis of collaboration). The
U.S.S.R., which grew primarily as a result of (capitalist) World War
(war involving the developed nations), ceased to find 'opportunities' as
a consequence of long-term suppression of capitalist inter-rivalry
whereas the U.S., requiring only undeveloped nations to absorb, was able
to expand with less disruption and, consequently, less risk to its
foundation. (In short, the strategy of Cold War worked to the advantage
of capitalism.)
> What do you think would havhappened in Russia in the early 20th
century had there been no Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Kamenev, and
Zinoviev? Can you claim it is unMarxist to see their contribution as
decisive.
I follow Plekhanov's classic treatment of this issue.
Plekhanov: 'The personality of every one who has attained eminence in
the intellectual or social field belongs to those chances whose
appearance does not conflict in any way with the tendency of the average
line of the intellectual development of mankind to follow a course
parallel to that of its economic evolution' (Fundamental Problems of
Marxism, International 1928, p. 70)... 'When a given state of society
sets certain problems before its intellectual representatives, the
attention of prominent minds is concentrated upon them until these
problems are solved. As soon as they have succeeded in solving them,
their attention is transferred to another object. By solving a problem a
given talent A diverts the attention of talent B from the problem
already solved to another problem' (The Role of the Individual in
History, International 1940, p. 50).
Yet...
'A great man is great not because his personal qualities give individual
features to great historical events, but because he possesses qualities
which make him most capable of serving the great social needs of his
time, needs which arose as a result of general and particular causes.
Carlyle, in his well-known book on heroes and hero-worship, calls great
men BEGINNERS. This is a very apt description. A great man is precisely
a beginner because he sees FURTHER than others, and desires things MORE
STRONGLY than others... [I]f I know in what direction social relations
are changing owing to given changes in the social-economic process of
production, I also know what direction social mentality is changing;
consequently I am able to influence it' (The Role of the Individual in
History, International 1940, pp. 59-60 & 60-61).
OK?
> Whereas the working class in power can be expected to be generous in
extending aid to the former neo-colonies, they cannot be expected to
submit to a lowering of their own standard of living. This is why
Trotsky wrote, even before the second world war, that communists must
show the Americian workers tha under socialism they will be able to
purchase more neckties.
He went further than that in that popular piece (If America Should Go
Communist); he inferred everybody would get a house as well. From THAT
Mandel, in his popular outline of Marxist Economic Theory, proposed that
everyone would also get their own car---in addition to a well-developed
public transportation system. We can all thank the Greens for disabusing
Marxists of such nonsense.
That said, the issue of (socialist) equality arising from a basis of
(capitalist) inequality remains one of the most salient challenges
confronting Marxists. (I have my own take on the problem and perhaps
I'll share it sometime...)
> In embracing as one standard the last standard you mention, you would
arrive, taking that standard alone, at a theory different from Lenin's
weakest link thesis... You would then arrive at a theory more like Mao
Tse-tung's theory of the periphery and the center. Whareas Lenin saw
that a revolution could (probably would and did) break out in the
weakest link, the Maoist theory held that revolution in the imperialist
world must be preceded by revolution in all or almost all of the
neo-colonies, which support the working class in the imperialist
countries in their inflated living standards.)
Lenin's 'weakest link' conception was no set formula. At times, he
specified that socialism would come first to one or two nations ('Slogan
for a United States of Europe') and at other times he conjectured that
socialism would transpire as a result of a 'whole series of democratic
and revolutionary movements, including the national liberation movement'
('A Caricature of Marxism')---finally describing the Russian experience
as owing to 'the peculiar weakness and backwardness of capitalism, and
the peculiar pressure of military strategic circumstances'
('Extraordinary 6th All-Russia Congress of Soviets'). So here Lenin and
Mao are not especially at odds. Generalizing, it's ALWAYS a crisis, a
capitalist crisis, that leads to revolutionary potential and we should
always expect that each crisis will have its own distinguishing
characteristics.
> But, that ignores that this standard of living was *wrested* from the
employers. If that standard of living is attributed to the
super-exploitation of the Third World, it would imply that industrial
unionism was a movement against the Third World.
Obviously, the First World proletariat confronts its employers---and,
then, profit falling, the employers find new methods in which to profit.
In some cases, alas, unionism HAS been a movement against the Third
World; such was the disheartening experience of the American era of
trade unionism that supported Vietnam, to name but one conspicuous and
appalling example.
Barry Stoller
Morrisian utopians who repudiated the October Revolution in 1918.
steph...@mindspring.com
<ba...@utopia2000.org> wrote:
>
> Both systems, capitalism and socialism, require global, or near-global
> hegemony in which to operate. From there, the similarities end or, more
> precisely, become inverse. Capitalism's increasing abundance, upon which
> political liberalization depends, necessitates more and more
> underdeveloped nations to bring under its influence (in this case, under
> a basis of exploitation). Socialism's increasing abundance, upon which
> political liberalization also depends, necessitates more and more
> developed nations, or at the very least development in general, to bring
> under its influence (in this case, under a basis of collaboration). The
> U.S.S.R., which grew primarily as a result of (capitalist) World War
> (war involving the developed nations), ceased to find 'opportunities' as
> a consequence of long-term suppression of capitalist inter-rivalry
> whereas the U.S., requiring only undeveloped nations to absorb, was able
> to expand with less disruption and, consequently, less risk to its
> foundation. (In short, the strategy of Cold War worked to the advantage
> of capitalism.)
If "socialism" requires increasing opportunities (for unexplained
reasons), then global hegemony would not *suffice.* Like capitalism,
having divided up the world, it would decline, imploding as contnasted
with capitalist explosion.
>
> > What do you think would havhappened in Russia in the early 20th
> century had there been no Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Kamenev, and
> Zinoviev? Can you claim it is unMarxist to see their contribution as
> decisive.
>
> I follow Plekhanov's classic treatment of this issue.
>
> Plekhanov: 'The personality of every one who has attained eminence in
> the intellectual or social field belongs to those chances whose
> appearance does not conflict in any way with the tendency of the average
> line of the intellectual development of mankind to follow a course
> parallel to that of its economic evolution' (Fundamental Problems of
> Marxism, International 1928, p. 70)... 'When a given state of society
> sets certain problems before its intellectual representatives, the
> attention of prominent minds is concentrated upon them until these
> problems are solved. As soon as they have succeeded in solving them,
> their attention is transferred to another object. By solving a problem a
> given talent A diverts the attention of talent B from the problem
> already solved to another problem' (The Role of the Individual in
> History, International 1940, p. 50).
The key phrase here is "the average line of intellectual development. It
implies that over a sufficiently long point period of time, a given
intellectual problem will be solved.
Interpreted otherwise, it verges on mysticism. Can you believe that had
Lenin and the other key Bolsheviks not existed, other equal men would have
come forward in their place? The need to remove the Tsar concentrated the
minds of the greatest men, but surely the absence of Lenin would have
caused great minds to become Bolsheviks, had there been no Lenin, Trotsky,
Bukharin. I mean it isn't like a great mind will hold back, saying to
himself or herself, "I'm not needed here; a Lenin already exists. In fact
the presence of Lenin surely made it *more* likely great minds would be
attracted to the Bolshevik cause.
>
<Snip other quote as not directly relevant.>
> OK?
>
> > Whereas the working class in power can be expected to be generous in
> extending aid to the former neo-colonies, they cannot be expected to
> submit to a lowering of their own standard of living. This is why
> Trotsky wrote, even before the second world war, that communists must
> show the Americian workers tha under socialism they will be able to
> purchase more neckties.
>
> He went further than that in that popular piece (If America Should Go
> Communist); he inferred everybody would get a house as well. From THAT
> Mandel, in his popular outline of Marxist Economic Theory, proposed that
> everyone would also get their own car---in addition to a well-developed
> public transportation system. We can all thank the Greens for disabusing
> Marxists of such nonsense.
I'm with Trotsky. Come to think of it, I'm for Mandel. As for the Greens,
feed them to the whales.
>
<Snip on weatest link>
>
> > But, that ignores that this standard of living was *wrested* from the
> employers. If that standard of living is attributed to the
> super-exploitation of the Third World, it would imply that industrial
> unionism was a movement against the Third World.
>
> Obviously, the First World proletariat confronts its employers---and,
> then, profit falling, the employers find new methods in which to profit.
> In some cases, alas, unionism HAS been a movement against the Third
> World; such was the disheartening experience of the American era of
> trade unionism that supported Vietnam, to name but one conspicuous and
> appalling example.
This doesn't explain how the presence of foreign investment allows
capitalists to pay their domestic workers more. That would conflict with
the purpose of seeking foreign investments. It would conflict with the
fact that unions oppose the movement of capital abroad. You don't hear the
unions demanding, "Send capital to where wages are low, so that you can
bribe us."
Monopolization gives capital a certain elbow room, while at the same time
making it less stable. If small capitalists tried to funnel money into
political propaganda, tried to influence the unions ideologically and then
bribed the leadership with money that it agrees should be diverted to such
bribery (to put the matter crudely, as though the result of class instinct
were a conspiracy) the result would be that the capitalists who are NOT
inclined to divert some of their profits in that direction would have a
competitive advantage. Such competitive advantage can be suppressed to an
extent under monopoly capitalism, where a few capitalists can act in
concert.
As to the unions on Vietnam, it was surely not in the interests of the
workers that their sons be killed or maimed, or that they be taxed to
support the war effort. Pretty much everyone was for the war in the United
States through most of its course. It is called the ideological dominance
of the ruling class.
srd
Christian Camacho
: > I would argue that the U.S. today is a lot LESS liberal than in the
Aren't you being somewhat unmaterialistic here? Would you say that
the American revolution was not progressive because at the time
blacks were slaves, women were almost chattel, and natives were
butchered?
In my opinion, a Marxist reading of America History would
grant the enormously progressive nature of the American Revolution
even DESPITE its unsolved contradictions.
Who here dares deny that capitalism, for example, was a tremendously
progressive step in social evolution despite the fact that it
relies entirely on the exploitation of the masses in the direct benefit
of a relative handful.
You seem unwilling to grant the regime of the bourgeoisie what
you so readily concede to Stalinism. Not a sound approach, in
my opinion.
Christian Camacho
suggestion that Marx or Engels viewed themselves as
the "leaders". In fact, it is a well documented historical
fact that Marx himself eschewed rank, its appurtenances and
any attempt on the part of others to grant him honors.
More than anything,the quotations below actually confirms what I
wrote about Marx and Engels having advanced and developed a
radically different conception of proletarian leadership whereby
the "leader" becomes instead an educator; a woman or man whose
primary role is elevating the consciousness of his comrades.
Barry Stoller (ba...@utopia2000.org) wrote:
: 'The Communists... are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced
: and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that
: section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand,
: theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the
: advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions,
: and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement' (The
: Communist Manifesto, International 1948, p. 22).
: 'It is the specific duty of the leaders [of the proletarian struggle] to
: gain an ever clearer understanding of the theoretical problems, to free
: themselves more and more from the influence of traditional phrases
: inherited from the world, and constantly keep in mind that Socialism,
: having become a science, demands the same treatment as every other
: science---it must be studied. The task of the leaders will be to bring
: understanding, thus acquired and clarified, to the working masses, to
: spread it with increased enthusiasm, to close the ranks of the party
: organizations and of the labor unions with ever greater energy' (Preface
: to the Second Edition of The Peasant War in Germany, International 1926,
: p. 29).
steph...@mindspring.com
Camacho) wrote:
> Thank you, Barry. But nowhere there is there even the
> suggestion that Marx or Engels viewed themselves as
> the "leaders". In fact, it is a well documented historical
> fact that Marx himself eschewed rank, its appurtenances and
> any attempt on the part of others to grant him honors.
>
> More than anything,the quotations below actually confirms what I
> wrote about Marx and Engels having advanced and developed a
> radically different conception of proletarian leadership whereby
> the "leader" becomes instead an educator; a woman or man whose
> primary role is elevating the consciousness of his comrades.
>
>
Flag is pushing his Party's smear that the Bolsheviks "seized power"
literally, as opposed to leading the working class to seizing power. That
imaginary seizure is what he means by a different concept of leadership.
He has to be vague, since the SLP's smears have been thoroughly refuted in
apst. Recall Flag could not answer that since he cannot deny the soviets
were organs of workers power, and that they seized power, the workers
thereby seized power. His counter was that the soviets immediately
surrendered power to the Bolsheviks, but he could not defend it against
the decisive argument that if a proletarian dictatorship was so flimsy as
to immediately surrender power, there was no hope for workers democracy
anywhere.
So now he dishonestly *hints* at the refuted position, by writing of a
'different concept of leadership.'
Flag, stop lying and go ask some SLP guru if he can answer the arguments.
Or, are they all as stupid as you?
srd
Christian Camacho
: In article <95bjsb$i...@nntp.seflin.org>, red...@dc.seflin.org (Christian
: Camacho) wrote:
: Flag, stop lying and go ask some SLP guru if he can answer the arguments.
: Or, are they all as stupid as you?
Yes, they are as "stupid" as me but, fortunately, not as stupid as you.
--
"Nowadays, atheism is itself *culpa levis*, as compared
with criticism of existing property relations."
Access The People on-line by visiting our web page at http://www.slp.org
steph...@mindspring.com
<stephend15-31...@user-2iniu9r.dialup.mindspring.com>,
steph...@mindspring.com wrote:
The need to remove the Tsar concentrated the
> minds of the greatest men, but surely the absence of Lenin would have
> caused great minds to become Bolsheviks,
should be "would NOT have caused great minds. . ."
srd
Barry Stoller
about Marx and Engels having advanced and developed a radically
different conception of proletarian leadership whereby the "leader"
becomes instead an educator; a woman or man whose primary role is
elevating the consciousness of his comrades.
We will have to disagree. I, following the Bolsheviks' interpretation,
think those quotes are as explicit as possible; you, on the other hand,
following the 2nd International interpretation, think they are equivocal
liberal mush. I thank you for furnishing what would appear to be the
impossible, namely, common ground between Diamond and myself.
Barry Stoller
progressive step in social evolution despite the fact that it relies
entirely on the exploitation of the masses in the direct benefit of a
relative handful.
I have denied no such thing. However, my comments were confined to an
analysis of the political effects that increased abundance have WITHIN
one given social system.
Barry Stoller
near-global hegemony in which to operate. From there, the similarities
end or, more precisely, become inverse. Capitalism's increasing
abundance, upon which political liberalization depends, necessitates
more and more underdeveloped nations to bring under its influence (in
this case, under a basis of exploitation). Socialism's increasing
abundance, upon which political liberalization also depends,
necessitates more and more developed nations, or at the very least
development in general, to bring under its influence (in this case,
under a basis of collaboration). The U.S.S.R., which grew primarily as a
result of (capitalist) World War (war involving the developed nations),
ceased to find 'opportunities' as a consequence of long-term suppression
of capitalist inter-rivalry whereas the U.S., requiring only undeveloped
nations to absorb, was able to expand with less disruption and,
consequently, less risk to its foundation. (In short, the strategy of
Cold War worked to the advantage of capitalism.)
> If "socialism" requires increasing opportunities (for unexplained
reasons), then global hegemony would not *suffice.* Like capitalism,
having divided up the world, it would decline, imploding as contnasted
with capitalist explosion.
Perhaps my writing was unclear or perhaps you read it carelessly. The
only commonality between capitalism and socialism, in my view, is
tendency to acquire global hegemony. While I do believe, following
Luxemburg, that capital must ceaselessly expand throughout precapitalist
nations, eventually running out of opportunities (for exploitation), I
believe that socialism, based on cooperation, will eventually be able to
push itself forward AFTER reaching the goal of world hegemony.
> Can you believe that had Lenin and the other key Bolsheviks not
existed, other equal men would have come forward in their place?
I go by Plekhanov. Recall that Lenin did also, saying that Plekhanov's
works were essential theoretical tools. I don't recall Trotsky saying as
much.
> I'm with Trotsky. Come to think of it, I'm for Mandel. As for the
Greens, feed them to the whales.
Ah, Diamond, I'm seriously disappointed in you. How churlish. Do you
REALLY think every Chinese and Indian person will be able to own a car
without severe damage to the air? Only the most irresolute dogmatist
would follow Trotsky and Mandel where they, themselves, had they had the
time, would have changed course. Ecology, like Marxism, is a science and
the information brought to light BY science is constantly expanding.
> This doesn't explain how the presence of foreign investment allows
capitalists to pay their domestic workers more. That would conflict with
the purpose of seeking foreign investments. It would conflict with the
fact that unions oppose the movement of capital abroad. You don't hear
the unions demanding, "Send capital to where wages are low, so that you
can bribe us."
Like the average union worker is really hip to the dialectical
interconnection between low wages overseas, affordable commodities,
profit pressures, and the push to immiserate even the labor
aristocracy---in short, the irrationality of capitalism and its many
contradictions.
I don't get you, Diamond. Sometimes you seem erudite and smart; other
times, you sound like a troll.
steph...@mindspring.com
<ba...@utopia2000.org> wrote:
> > This doesn't explain how the presence of foreign investment allows
> capitalists to pay their domestic workers more. That would conflict with
> the purpose of seeking foreign investments. It would conflict with the
> fact that unions oppose the movement of capital abroad. You don't hear
> the unions demanding, "Send capital to where wages are low, so that you
> can bribe us."
>
> Like the average union worker is really hip to the dialectical
> interconnection between low wages overseas, affordable commodities,
> profit pressures, and the push to immiserate even the labor
> aristocracy---in short, the irrationality of capitalism and its many
> contradictions.
>
> I don't get you, Diamond. Sometimes you seem erudite and smart; other
> times, you sound like a troll.
If the average benefitted from having capital go abroad instead of kept
domestically, there would be no want of ideologists ready to explain to
them why that is the case, and thus why they should favor rather than
oppose the flight of capital.
You say I sometimes sound like a troll, but you embrace something close to
the late SDS concept of a "white skin privilege" that must be renounced by
white workers.
You still haven't explained how it works. Capitalists buy off the workers
here by giving bribes that come out of super-exploitation. For the
bargain, jobs for bribes, to be in the workers' interest the bribe must be
greater than the workers' wages in the jobs they lost. But for the bribe
to be in the capitalists interests it must be less than the amount saved
by moving away (or else there would be no point in exporting capital). The
amount saved by moving away will be less than the wages lost by the
workers here, because they have to pay the foreign workers *something*. Do
the math; it doesn't make sense.
Of course the model abave is extremely over-simplied, but I think close
enough for the bald point I am making: sending jobs overseas harms native
workers. (Considering fixed capital in the equation would only make the
result more extreme in the same direction.)
The Seattle demonstrators demonstrated against the WTO because it saw in
the export of capital an attack on their standard of living. What are you
going to tell them: you were wrong; you are better off with its export,
but should oppose that export purely out of Third World sympathy?
I sound like a troll to you because I eschew political correctness. You
sound like one to me because you embrace it more completely than others
here. The fact that, as I see it, only your allegiance to Stalinism keeps
you in the working class movement. Otherwise you would be an ordinary
Green. Stalinism is a mighty thin thread.
srd
Sayan Bhattacharyya
>Capitalists buy off the workers
>here by giving bribes that come out of super-exploitation. For the
>bargain, jobs for bribes, to be in the workers' interest the bribe must be
>greater than the workers' wages in the jobs they lost.
Not necessarily. What matters is not whether the bribe is _actually_
greater but whether the _perception_ can be successfully created that it is
greater. This can be conceivably be achieved through good public relations
and ad campaigns ("you never had it so good", "you're living through
the most prosperous times in the last 30 years", etc).
Christian Camacho
: > More than anything,the quotations below actually confirms what I wrote
I am certain that it was not I who furnished the "common ground"
for you and Diamond to camp on. Your penchant for innuendo and
gratuitous invective places you comfortably in his club.
You seem obstinate in your determination to pin Kautskyism on
me no matter what. This is unfortunate because it forces you
to argue by invective and innuendo.
Please explain: How and why is Marx's radical conception of
revolutionary proletarian leadership "equivocal liberal mush"
and, please, document where and when such conception originated
in the second International?
Indeed, it seems to me, you illustrate the refrain "a little
learning is a dangerous thing."
--
"Nowadays, atheism is itself *culpa levis*, as compared
with criticism of existing property relations."
Access The People on-line by visiting our web page at http://www.slp.org
Bert Byfield
>greater but whether the _perception_ can be successfully created that it is
>greater. This can be conceivably be achieved through good public relations
>and ad campaigns ("you never had it so good", "you're living through
>the most prosperous times in the last 30 years", etc).
Like they used to say when Stalin was Boss, you mean?
Christian Camacho
: Stephen Diamond wrote:
But look at it this way: In order to gain the complicity of the working
class the capitalist "buys off" the worker with a greater standard of
living or the promise thereof. Supposedly it works for a while, right?
Well, what happens when the capitalist cannot deliver on the promises
he's made to the worker or when he can no longer guarantee that higher
standard of living to his hithertofore bribed working class?
If you examine history and, more specifically, the history of past
revolutions, you'll discover that the greatest revolutionary impulse
was provided by that class or group whose interest it was to preserve
the gains aquired under the ancien regime.
Lenini himself wrote that a revolutionary situation could be
discerned when several social conditions could be seen occuring
simultaneously. I'll try to quote them by memory:
1. When those who govern cannot rule as accustomed and must
resort to extraordinary means to hold on to power,
2. When those governed feel they can no longer look upon
their rulers to guarantee their accustomed standard of living
and must take hold of the situation themselves in order to
secure it, and
3. When even the most backward element of society feels compelled
to involve itself in political struggle.
It seems to me, Sayan, that many of our Leninist friend here
have not bothered to learn the valuable lessons that Lenin
had to offer.
steph...@mindspring.com
bhat...@engin.umich.edu (Sayan Bhattacharyya) wrote:
Unless the amount of wealth available to the capitalist class is greater,
their ability to manipulate the perception will not be greater. That is,
unless for some reason their ability to manipulate the perception depends
on the source of the wealth instead of the amount. I cannot imagine a
rationale for such a contention. Can you?
srd
steph...@mindspring.com
Camacho) wrote:
> Barry Stoller (ba...@utopia2000.org) wrote:
> : > More than anything,the quotations below actually confirms what I wrote
> : about Marx and Engels having advanced and developed a radically
> : different conception of proletarian leadership whereby the "leader"
> : becomes instead an educator; a woman or man whose primary role is
> : elevating the consciousness of his comrades.
>
> : We will have to disagree. I, following the Bolsheviks' interpretation,
> : think those quotes are as explicit as possible; you, on the other hand,
> : following the 2nd International interpretation, think they are equivocal
> : liberal mush. I thank you for furnishing what would appear to be the
> : impossible, namely, common ground between Diamond and myself.
>
> I am certain that it was not I who furnished the "common ground"
> for you and Diamond to camp on. Your penchant for innuendo and
> gratuitous invective places you comfortably in his club.
Can anyone read the above and not recognize who is engaging in gratuitous
insult? Oh, that lying sack of shit, Flag.
srd
steph...@mindspring.com
<ba...@utopia2000.org> wrote:
I understood that you helped yourself to exactly what your politics
require--a "socialism" that must expand to more advanced countries
continually, but only until it attains world hegemony. My point was that
you helped yourself to what was not yours for the taking.
srd
Sayan Bhattacharyya
Stephen Diamond wrote:
>bhat...@engin.umich.edu (Sayan Bhattacharyya) wrote:
>
>> Stephen Diamond wrote:
>>
>> >Capitalists buy off the workers
>> >here by giving bribes that come out of super-exploitation. For the
>> >bargain, jobs for bribes, to be in the workers' interest the bribe must be
>> >greater than the workers' wages in the jobs they lost.
>>
>> Not necessarily. What matters is not whether the bribe is _actually_
>> greater but whether the _perception_ can be successfully created that it is
>> greater. This can be conceivably be achieved through good public relations
>> and ad campaigns ("you never had it so good", "you're living through
>> the most prosperous times in the last 30 years", etc).
>
>Unless the amount of wealth available to the capitalist class is greater,
>their ability to manipulate the perception will not be greater. That is,
>unless for some reason their ability to manipulate the perception depends
>on the source of the wealth instead of the amount.
I am not sure I follow your line of thought here. The ability of class
A to manipulate the perception of class B depends not on the source of
the wealth of class A, but on the fact that class A is relatively wealthy
compared to class B. Thus, class A ends up controlling the media, which
is the instrument for perception-altering.
To take an example:
Something that Chomsky has written about several times is how, in his
youth, there was a flourishing left-wing press in Yiddish and other
languages, as well as in English, that used to publish leftist
newspapers that had pretty good circulation among US workers. Now
there are no such leftist newspapers ( other than the sectarian rags
of course, which I doubt if few workers read).
Similarly, I believe that in the 1930s there were labor-owned/union-owned
left-wing radio stations, something that would be impossible to conceive
today. (Just look at the currently ongoing events at WBAI in New York
City and other Pacifica Radio stations).
As for the reply of Mr. Redflag to my post: I think the situation
may have qualitatively changed since Lenin and Marx's day, when
the power of the media was not so all-pervasive. Today, after the
electronic revolution, the media provides the hegemonic classes
with a much more powerful instrument for perception altering compared
to what had been available in earlier epochs.
redflag
redflag
Sayan Bhattacharyya wrote:
> As for the reply of Mr. Redflag to my post: I think the situation
> may have qualitatively changed since Lenin and Marx's day, when
> the power of the media was not so all-pervasive. Today, after the
> electronic revolution, the media provides the hegemonic classes
> with a much more powerful instrument for perception altering compared
> to what had been available in earlier epochs.
This is true, Sayan. But just as there was no "all-pervasive" mass media
in Marx's day neither was there a cheap _multimedia_ system of
_popular_ communication called the internet.
Capitalists may constantly try to distract us, befuddle our
senses and otherwise manipulate us to their ends, but they cannot
mitigate the actual physical effects of capitalist contradictions,
nor can they stop us from talking to each other and discussing
our individual and collective experiences and comparing our
perceptions.
Allow me to digress here a little:
This discussion makes me think about Pavlov and his research
into animal behavior.
Whereas Pavlov was able to explain and demonstrate
the power of conditioning in lower animals and, by extension,
the possiblity of conditioning certain human behavior, it gave
rise to the popular notion of brainwashing, the pseudoscientific
concept that one could take a perfectly normal human being,
completely erase certain aspects of his personality, and record
new ones. "Brainwashing" came into vogue as a political/scientific
myth during the cold war.
But, in my opinion, there is a flaw in the notion of brainwashing.
Humans aren't that easy to condition nor is it easy to permanently
retain certain conditions behavior in humans. This is because what
distinguishes humans from Pavlov's dog and any dog, for that matter,
is the _potential_ for critical thought; the potential for objectivity
and detachment that humans have developed through biological
as well as social evolutiuon.
This is why I seriously doubt the arguments that posit such
absolute ideological control over the masses on the part of
the present-day bourgeoisie.
I know, and you'd be justified in pointing out, that there is
an awfully big leap between the basic principles of animal
conditioning discovered by Pavlov and the problem of capitalist
ideological hegemony. I´ll admit that the gap is greater than
my knowledge and intelligence can possibly ovecome in
only a few paragraphs of meditation on the subject, but I hope
you can see where I'm leading to with this line of discussion.
Christian Camacho
: In article
: <stephend15-31...@user-2iniu9r.dialup.mindspring.com>,
: steph...@mindspring.com wrote:
You had it right the first time, Diamond.
Barry Stoller
You sound like one to me because you embrace it more completely than
others here. The fact that, as I see it, only your allegiance to
Stalinism keeps you in the working class movement. Otherwise you would
be an ordinary Green. Stalinism is a mighty thin thread.
Well, you sure know how to keep the provocative polemics flying (whether
grounded in fact or fantasy), Stephen Diamond. Sorry, you'll have to
find someone else to outrage from here on; you've served my
purpose---adding some dogmatic sectarian Trotskyism to the book I'm
working on. Take care and enjoy getting the last word---you ARE the last
word sort of guy, right?
steph...@mindspring.com
<ba...@utopia2000.org> wrote:
Take care and enjoy getting the last word---you ARE the last
> word sort of guy, right?
Usually I can restrain myself.
Oops!
srd
mebe...@hotmail.com
red...@dc.seflin.org (Christian Camacho) wrote:
> leslie...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : The revolution can be hastened by agitation. Lenin was clear about
> : this in "What is To Be Done". This means publishing a newspaper and
> : reporting to the working class the contradictions and inequalities
of
> : capitalism and putting forward the ideas of unionism, revolution,
and a
> : working class political party.
>
> Damn! You just articulated in general terms the tactics of
> my party.
>
Since when have a couple of taxis filled with people become a party?
When humans start to sell political parties like corporations sell
products!
meberry68
> "Nowadays, atheism is itself *culpa levis*, as compared
> with criticism of existing property relations."
>
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Lewis Higgins
news:stephend15-31...@user-2iniujk.dialup.mindspring.com...
> In article <95a6d8$t...@nntp.seflin.org>, red...@dc.seflin.org (Christian
> Camacho) wrote:
>
>
> > This is such horseshit! Neither Marx nor Engels ever presumed to
> > provide "leadership" to the workers. Such concepts were alien
> > to them.
> Which essays? Quote the relevant passages, or at least paraphrase them.
Marx and Engels' circular letter to the German Social Democrats in 1879:
"When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle cry:
The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working
classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly
state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must
be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois."
--
Lew
Sean Carroll
<lewhi...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Marx and Engels' circular letter to the German Social Democrats in 1879:
>
>"When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle cry:
>The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working
>classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who openly
>state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must
>be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois."
But they certainly believed that there must be some form of
organisation, encouragement, and education carried out by a group of
the most educated and class-conscious workers, with a few former
petit-bourgeois and bourgeois intellectuals who removed themselves
from their own class by formally identifying their own interest with
that of the proletariat (this latter category including folks like
Marx, Engels, DeLeon, and Lenin). Perhaps not 'leadership' in the
bourgeois sense, but the success of a revolution without some kind of
guidance and planning by a revolutionary vanguard (presumably one full
of people who consider themselves not 'above' the workers but *of*
them and in service to them) seems like an impossibility on rational
consideration.
If Marx didn't believe in some form (even a new, dialectical,
proletarian form) of leadership, he would not have founded the First
International.
--Sean
rabhegmarlen
news:3a7d4058....@news.tulane.edu...
In order to understand why Marx and Engels wrote what they did it is
important to look at previous social movements and bourgeois revolutions
where the working class was used as a tool to achieve bourgeois and petty
bourgeois ends. They also had to polemicise against utopian socialists such
as Robert Owen who thought that the working class must be educated *from
above*. Hence the part of thesis three that reads '...... the educator
himself needs educating......' There is no doubt that Lenin and the
Bolsheviks considered themselves as part of the working class (an opposite
within the working class).
rab
--
Roger Blackwell, Norwich, Britain
Excite Chat ID: rabhegmarlen1, ICQ 71780619
http://www.blackwell23.freeserve.co.uk
Lewis Higgins
> >
> >"When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle
cry:
> >The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working
> >classes themselves. We cannot, therefore, co-operate with people who
openly
> >state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and
must
> >be freed from above by philanthropic big bourgeois and petty bourgeois."
Sean Carroll wrote:
> But they certainly believed that there must be some form of
> organisation, encouragement, and education carried out by a group of
> the most educated and class-conscious workers, with a few former
> petit-bourgeois and bourgeois intellectuals who removed themselves
> from their own class by formally identifying their own interest with
> that of the proletariat (this latter category including folks like
> Marx, Engels, DeLeon, and Lenin). Perhaps not 'leadership' in the
> bourgeois sense, but the success of a revolution without some kind of
> guidance and planning by a revolutionary vanguard (presumably one full
> of people who consider themselves not 'above' the workers but *of*
> them and in service to them) seems like an impossibility on rational
> consideration.
>
> If Marx didn't believe in some form (even a new, dialectical,
> proletarian form) of leadership, he would not have founded the First
> International.
Marx certainly did believe in the necessity of working class political
organisation - that is one reason why he helped found the First
International. However, this does not entail leadership by a revolutionary
vanguard. It is one thing to be a class conscious communist actively
organising (one sense of being in the vanguard), it is quite another thing
to be an organised vanguard with the specific purpose of leading and
planning the workers' emancipation (the Leninist conception of a vanguard).
Marx's meaning is clear enough: if the working class cannot emancipate
itself as a class, then nobody else can do it for them.
--
Lew
steph...@mindspring.com
<lewhi...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
It is one thing to be a class conscious communist actively
> organising (one sense of being in the vanguard), it is quite another thing
> to be an organised vanguard with the specific purpose of leading and
> planning the workers' emancipation (the Leninist conception of a vanguard).
Spell out what you see the difference to be. As it stands, you are saying
there are two senses of being a vanguard: one actively organizing and the
other actively organizing for revolution. The first subsumes the second;
you haven't differentiated it from the second. What "organizing" do you
think Marx had in mind, if not organizing for the seizure of power?
srd
Sean Carroll
<lewhi...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Marx certainly did believe in the necessity of working class political
>organisation - that is one reason why he helped found the First
>International. However, this does not entail leadership by a revolutionary
>vanguard.
I happen to disagree. I think that successful working-class political
organisation very much entails the creation of a vanguard.
> It is one thing to be a class conscious communist actively
>organising (one sense of being in the vanguard), it is quite another thing
>to be an organised vanguard with the specific purpose of leading and
>planning the workers' emancipation (the Leninist conception of a vanguard).
The only difference between these two entities is that one (the
Leninist type) had to deal with actively revolutionary conditions
where the working class as a whole was actually ready to rise up. The
'organised Leninist vanguard with the specific purpose of leading and
planning the workers' emancipation' is nothing more than the 'vanguard
of class-conscious communists actively organising' transferred from
reactionary times to revolutionary ones. At least, this is what a
*materialist* (like Marx, Engels, DeLeon, Lenin, Trotsky, and millions
of class-conscious workers) would say. Perhaps one could locate the
unique qualities of the Bolshevik Party in some kind of delusional
dictatorial thinking by Lenin if one believed in the *idealist*
conception of history ...
>Marx's meaning is clear enough: if the working class cannot emancipate
>itself as a class, then nobody else can do it for them.
Absolutely correct. However, nothing about that fact excludes the
necessity of the most advanced and conscious layer of workers (and
their allies) providing leadership and propaganda to the rest of the
class, and in revolutionary times serving as their actual
representative in agitation against the existing bourgeois state.
(After a workers' state has been established, of course, the workers
do not need a 'representative' as they can hopefully have a direct
voice through the soviets. But they still surely need some group of
educated and radical workers up in front doing some kind of planning
and leading, or they'd be a sitting duck for the organised and armed
forces of counterrevolution. So while I do not believe in a one-party
dictatorship -- which Lenin wasn't too fond of either but found
necessary in the time and place he was -- I certainly believe in a
Leninist vanguard that is not a 'ruler over the workers' but an
appendage of their various independent economic organisations
(soviets, unions, et cetera) that is expressly political and
uncompromisingly radical.
--Sean
redflag
Lewis Higgins wrote:
I would offer an amendment to Lew's response. That is, that neither
Marx nor Engels envisioned that the revolutionary "leadership" provided
by the proletarian vanguard should be composed of _professional_
revolutionaries assembled or organized as such. Or that they should
posses powers that allowed them to impose their will on the
workers
Lenin's conception essentially assumes that the working class needs
a group of men who act on their behalf thus relieving the workers of
the responsibility of establishing by themselves the organs of revolutionary
power. It also assumes that these men would be able to overrule the wishes
of the workers especially if their ability to make decisions on behalf of
the working class should be challenged by the workers themselves:
“The Workers’ Opposition has come out with dangerous slogans.
They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed
the workers’ right to elect representatives above the party, as it were,
as if the party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that
dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers’
democracy...It is necessary to create among us the awareness
of the revolutionary historical birthright of the party. The party is
obliged to maintain its dictatorship, regardless of temporary wavering
in the spontaneous moods of the masses, regardless of the temporary
vacillations even in the working class. This awareness is for us the
indispensable unifying element.”
--Leon
Trotsky
This view was essentially endorsed by Lenin and later given full
expression by Stalin.
--
"Nowadays, atheism is itself *culpa levis*, as compared
with criticism of existing property relations."
Access The People on-line by visiting our web page at http://www.slp.org
steph...@mindspring.com
<red...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
That is, that neither
> Marx nor Engels envisioned that the revolutionary "leadership" provided
> by the proletarian vanguard should be composed of _professional_
> revolutionaries assembled or organized as such.
What the hell do you think Marx and Engels were if not professional
revolutionaries, moron.
srd
Werner Cohn
steph...@mindspring.com at steph...@mindspring.com wrote on 2/4/01 6:08
PM:
steph...@mindspring.com
<wern...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I am honored that someone of your seniority so avidly reads my postings.
srd
Bert Byfield
>> revolutionaries, moron.
Lecturers, like Buckminster Fuller.
redflag
Werner Cohn wrote:
Thanks, Werner. For some reason, my newsreader didn't catch Diamond's
petulant reply.
Marx and Engels were definitely not professional revolutionaries
in the sense that Lenin promoted the concept.
Marx and Engels were intellectuals, writers, teachers and scientists.
Engels was a capitalist and Marx drew some income from his
journalism. They served the organizations they founded in capacity
of elected officials.
redflag
steph...@mindspring.com
<red...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Marx and Engels were definitely not professional revolutionaries
> in the sense that Lenin promoted the concept.
>
> Marx and Engels were intellectuals, writers, teachers and scientists.
> Engels was a capitalist and Marx drew some income from his
> journalism. They served the organizations they founded in capacity
> of elected officials.
A professional revolutionary is a person who makes a career of being a
revolutionary, not someone who gets paid for it. Marx was able to make a
huge contribution without being supported by the party because the press
bought his work. He was freed from the need to pursue an occupation in
which his work was of no value to the working class.
Consider this: what if Marx had no Engels to support him, and his articles
weren't being published. Do you honestly think the Firist International
would not and should not have supported him economically? Only someone
with the mentality of a Chinese Red Guard would say yes. (Am I the moron?
Here I am asking the lying scum Flag to be honest.)
srd
Lewis Higgins
> > organising (one sense of being in the vanguard), it is quite another
thing
> > to be an organised vanguard with the specific purpose of leading and
> > planning the workers' emancipation (the Leninist conception of a
vanguard).
<steph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Spell out what you see the difference to be. As it stands, you are saying
> there are two senses of being a vanguard: one actively organizing and the
> other actively organizing for revolution. The first subsumes the second;
> you haven't differentiated it from the second. What "organizing" do you
> think Marx had in mind, if not organizing for the seizure of power?
The difference is that in the former case the working class emancipates
itself (consistent with Marx's notion of freedom as self-determination). In
the latter, Leninist case, emancipation takes place "on behalf of" the
working class by a vanguard party (thus recreating the political alienation
of class society). This latter can never lead to the highly participatory
society which Marx thought would replace capitalism. Although he emphasised
the importance of political organisation, Marx never talked about the party
(still less the vanguard) seizing power; it was always the working class.
That is why Marx and Engels sought to disassociate themselves from any
tendency which tried to substitute themselves for the self-activity of the
working class.
--
Lew
steph...@mindspring.com
<lewhi...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > It is one thing to be a class conscious communist actively
> > > organising (one sense of being in the vanguard), it is quite another
> thing
> > > to be an organised vanguard with the specific purpose of leading and
> > > planning the workers' emancipation (the Leninist conception of a
> vanguard).
>
>
> <steph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Spell out what you see the difference to be. As it stands, you are saying
> > there are two senses of being a vanguard: one actively organizing and the
> > other actively organizing for revolution. The first subsumes the second;
> > you haven't differentiated it from the second. What "organizing" do you
> > think Marx had in mind, if not organizing for the seizure of power?
>
>
> The difference is that in the former case the working class emancipates
> itself (consistent with Marx's notion of freedom as self-determination). In
> the latter, Leninist case, emancipation takes place "on behalf of" the
> working class by a vanguard party (thus recreating the political alienation
> of class society).
You are only repeating yourself, without clarifying anything. How did the
working class NOT emancipate itself in Russia, when the *working class*
seized power, through the instrumentality of he soviets, under the
*ideological* leadership of the Bolsheviks? Why is it OK to organize the
workers for anything BUT the seizure of power, as you appear to say above.
This latter can never lead to the highly participatory
> society which Marx thought would replace capitalism. Although he emphasised
> the importance of political organisation, Marx never talked about the party
> (still less the vanguard) seizing power; it was always the working class.
> That is why Marx and Engels sought to disassociate themselves from any
> tendency which tried to substitute themselves for the self-activity of the
> working class.
>
Marx and Engels distinguished themselves primarily for the Blanquists in
this regard. So did Lenin take paints to so distinguish the Bolsheviks
from them.
srd
redflag
steph...@mindspring.com wrote:
> In article <3A7E1D1A...@bellsouth.net>, redflag
> <red...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Marx and Engels were definitely not professional revolutionaries
> > in the sense that Lenin promoted the concept.
> >
> > Marx and Engels were intellectuals, writers, teachers and scientists.
> > Engels was a capitalist and Marx drew some income from his
> > journalism. They served the organizations they founded in capacity
> > of elected officials.
>
> A professional revolutionary is a person who makes a career of being a
> revolutionary, not someone who gets paid for it. Marx was able to make a
> huge contribution without being supported by the party because the press
> bought his work. He was freed from the need to pursue an occupation in
> which his work was of no value to the working class.
True enough, but this is not what Lenin had in mind. All along he had
envisoned a party composed _exclusively_ of revolutionaries whose
sole aim was not to obey the mandate of its supposed cosntituency, but to
lead it much like a dumb, driven herd.
Whereas Marx and Engels (but more Marx than Engels) were
_professional_ revolutionaries by avocation, they did not attempt
to elaborate a theory of party organization in which they as
members would aim at becoming state functionaries. In fact, their
conception of party structure was one consistent with the idea that
it's elected officials could be deposed by the rank-and-file at any
time. Whereas Lenin's professional revolutionaries were accountable
to no one but the men who made up the organs of central party rule
(take, for example, Trotsky's admonisment to the Workers'
Opposition).
Lenin's theory of the party is entirely centered around the
professional revolutionary destined to become state functionary.
This is how Soviet Historian E.H. Carr saw it:
"Before the end of Lenin's life, therefore, the authority of the
party over every aspect of policy and every branch of administra-
tion had been openly recognized and proclaimed. At the highest
level the predominance of the party as the ultimate source of
policy was assured by the supremacy of the Politburo; in the
working of the adimistrative machine the commissariats were
subject to the control of the Commissariat of Workers' and Peas-
ants' Inspection and, through it, of the central control commission
of the party; at the lowest level, party 'fractions', subject to party
instructions and discipline, participated actively in the work of
every official or semi-official body of any importance. Moreover,
the party exercised in such organizations as the trade unions and
the cooperatives, and even in major industrial establishments, the
same functions of leadership as it performed in relation to the
state. Just as the autonomy of the constituent republics and terri-
tories of the RSFSR (and later of the Soviet Union) was quali-
fied by the dependence of all on decisions of policy taken by the
central authorities of the ubiquitous party, so the independence
enjoyed by trade unions and cooperatives in relation to organs of
the state was qualified by the same common subordination to the
will of the party.
The formula in which this complicated nexus of institutions and
functions was expressed varied from time to time. According to
Lenin:
'The party, so to speak, embodies in itself the vanguard of the
proletariat. This vanguard makes the dictatorship of the proletariat
a reality; and without having such a foundation as the trade unions
who make the dictatorship real, it is impossible to give reality to
governmental functions. Reality is given to them through a series of
special institutions of a new type, namely through the apparatus of the
Soviets.'
In 1919 he made a trenchant retort to those who assailed the
'dictatorship of one party':
'Yes, the dictatorship of one party! We stand upon it and cannot
depart from this ground, since this is the party which in the
course of decades has won for itself the position of vanguard of the whole
factory and industrial proletariat.'
He poked fun at those who treated 'the dictatorship of one party'
as a bugbear, and added that 'the dictatorship of the working
class is carried into effect by the party of the Bolsheviks which since
1905 or earlier has been united with the whole revolutionary
proletariat'. Later he described the attempt to distinguish
between the dictatorship of the class and the dictatorship of the
party as proof of 'an unbelievable and inextricable confusion of
thought '. This formula continued to satisfy the party for some
years. At the twelfth congress in 1923, with Lenin no longer
present, Zinoviev made light of 'comrades who think that the
dictatorship of the party is a thing to be realized in practice
but not spoken about', and proceeded to develop the doctrine of the
dictatorship of the party as a dictatorship of the central com-
mittee:
'We need a single strong, powerful central committee which is
leader of everything... The central committee is the central committee
because it is the same central committee for the Soviets, and for
the trade unions, and for the cooperatives, and for the provincial
executive committees and for the whole working class. In this consists its
role of leadership, in this is expressed the dictatorship of the party.'
And the congress resolution declared that 'the dictatorship of the
working class cannot be assured otherwise than in the form of
dictatorship of its leading vanguard, i.e. the Communist Party'.
This time, however, Zinoviev's heavy-handedness provoked
its reaction. Stalin, for his part, was concerned to resist the
encroachment, not of the party on the state (that was anyhow a lost
cause), but of the central committee on the working organs of the
party, including the secretariat; and the dictatorship of the
central committee was a doctrine little to his taste. At the congress he
cautiously described the view that 'the party gives orders... and
the army, i.e. the working class, executes those orders' as
'radically false', and developed at length the metaphor of seven 'trans-
mission belts' from the party to the working class: trade unions,
cooperatives, leagues of youth, conferences of women delegates,
schools, the press and the army. A year later he boldly described
the dictatorship of the party as 'nonsense', and attributed its
appearance in the resolution of the twelfth congress to an 'over-
sight'. But, whatever the formula of the moment, the essential
fact was nowhere questioned. It was the Russian Communist
Party (Bolsheviks) which gave life and direction and motive power
to every form of public activity in the USSR and whose deci-
sions were binding on every organization of a public or
semi-public character. Every significant struggle for power
henceforth tookplace within the bosom of the party."
--E.H. Carr, "The Bolshevik Revolution," pp. 235-237
> Consider this: what if Marx had no Engels to support him, and his articles
> weren't being published. Do you honestly think the Firist International
> would not and should not have supported him economically? Only someone
> with the mentality of a Chinese Red Guard would say yes.
All that is incidental and irrelevant to the central issue we are
dealing with here. Innitially it was pointed out that M&E had
fundamentally different conceptions of leadership as they
applied to the working class. Wether or not Marx's work as a
revolutionary was unsupportable without Engel's financial assistance
is not in question. The issue is wether Lenin's conception of
leadership and its theoretical corollaries are consistent with
Marx's and compatible with genuine working class interests.
We maintain that they aren't.
> (Am I the moron?
> Here I am asking the lying scum Flag to be honest.)
Perhaps you should ask yourself if YOU are being honest
to yourself.
rabhegmarlen
>
> In "What is to be Done?" Lenin clearly articulates his conception
> of a party run essentially by professional revolutionaries, trained
> in conspiracy and aiming to seize power. Men whose actions
> were not accountable to the masses but to a nucleus of men
> composed as a central committe. If this is not what he
> HAD IN MIND or had ENVISIONED when he wrote
> "What is to be Done?", then why did he write it?
All political parties rest on their respective classes. If you do not know
this then you know nothing of politics. Lenin and the Bolshevik party could
not have gained power without the overwhelming support of the Russian
working class. Their support amongst the workers and peasants was severely
tested during the civil war and the wars of intervention - a stronger test
than any bourgeois election.
It is nonsense to pretend the October revolution was a coup. It changed the
class nature of Soviet society. Coups can only work when one section of the
ruling class replaces another and the social structure remains the same.