Phil Walden: It was a bourgeois state because it  was part of a world system
of bourgeois relations - all states extracting a  surplus from their
populations.  Thus the Soviet Union could not have  been some form of workers
state.  But it wasn't capitalist because the  surplus extracted in the Soviet
Union was not surplus value.

CB: Why  use the term "bourgeois" if it wasn't 
form of capitalism ?  

Here in a nutshell is the political and ideological divergence. Anyone  
"truly revolutionary" self appointed task is organize the workers to  overthrow 
bourgeois state. Since the Soviet state was an organization of  violence in 
the hands of the bourgeoisie, it was the task of those who viewed  the Soviet 
State as bourgeois, to overthrow it. 
Therefore, the functionaries making manifest the organization of the  
proletarian state;
that did not think it was the organization of violence protecting the value  
relationship and anarchy of production, 
hunted down those who sought to overthrow the state and restore . . .  
exactly what?
Such is how the functionaries of the state - not the state as such,  thought 
things out.  
I do agree that the Soviet state was not a worker state. The workers state  
is an abstraction, according to Lenin. I would prefer Lenin's language on this  
It was a proletarian state, "learning on the peasants."  The  worker-peasant 
alliance. ("Leaning on the peasants" is Trotsky precise  formulation).  
The task of the proletarian state as state is to protect the proletarian  
property relations. The role of the government which sits upon the proletarian  
state - as a superstructure, is to implement the economic and political agenda  
in conformity with the property relations. And in the Soviet Union this 
included  hunting down the counterrevolution, whose stated aim was the 
overthrow of 
the  state, rather than changing the government. . 
Post S. 
Extracting a surplus does not define the property relations in as much as  
every society on earth, outside of the initial communist organization of  
society, extracts a surplus. 
What was the surplus extracted in the Soviet Union? 
What was this surplus material physical appearance?  
Surplus product? 
If by change some of these "things" that are the "surplus,"  . . . was  food 
stuff,  . . . . then this "thing"  . . .had a use-value and  exchange-value, 
or a commodity form; 
because of the nature of small scale agricultural production, and the  law of 
commodity exchange. Wheat was sold as a commodity in the Soviet  Union. 
However, commodity production predates capitalism, which is to say, all  
production does not = capitalist commodity production. 
The surplus extracted was perhaps a  . . . . surplus product? Money? 
That is to say one runs backwards into the theory of value. 
The bourgeoisie appropriates the SURPLUS PRODUCT, which CONTAINS the  value 
manifestation, over and above, the value equivalent in wages, paid to the  
total laborers. That is to say, the workers create a total mass of commodities  
and the bourgeoisie pays them a value well below the value in the total  
commodities they  create. 
Hence surplus value. 
There is no other way to extract surplus value outside the surplus product,  
(that I am aware of)  as the act of bourgeoisie production, distribution  and 
circulation of commodities. 
**************Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax professional in your 
neighborhood today. 

Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:

Reply via email to