Comrade Javad,
I thank you, and also comrades Klo and John for the criticisms of my
attempt to explain the difference in the 'transitional' role of the
socialist state created following the two stage revolution. You have helped
me to see that it was wrong and futile for me to attempt to base an
argument to examine the differences of that socialist state, from the more
direct form of socialist state to be established on a higher stage of
development of the productive forces based on the higher development of the
instruments of production, on the quotes of Lenin, you all have made this
abundantly clear in this discussion. My own views are frustrated by the
differing references by Lenin himself in regard to the transitional role of
the Soviet state, which I will quote examples of below as requested. I
readily admit as you have all shown that any quotes of Lenin I could produce
in reference to the 'transition to socialism' can be countered by a quote on
the transition from 'capitalism to communism'. Interesting though, a final
further quote is to be found that differs again on this transition 'from'
and 'to' where. Here in this instance we find there is no mistaking that
what is meant is not the transitional role of that from capitalism to
communism:
"We in Russia (in the third year since the overthrow of the bourgeoisie)are
making the first steps in the transition from capitalism to socialism or the
lower stage of communism."
Lenin C/W Vol.31 "LeftWing Communism.., p.44:
This in itself gives added food for thought on the difference that exists in
the transitional role of the two forms of socialist state, the two stage
socialist state and if I may use the term the directly formed socialist
state to come. But as I said, I think it is futile for me to persue my
argument to identify the difference in the transitional role of the two
forms of socialist state on quoting Lenin. Nevertheless I have benefitted
from the discussion on this aspect and have aken the opportunity to express
my dissatisfaction with contemporary Marxist-Leninist anlysis of the cause
of the collapse of the socialist states which I have repeatedly pointed out
does not take fully into consideration the stage of development of the
productive forces in the Soviet Union.
If I may recap. The proletariat overthrew the newly emerged bourgeoise
state, and established the dictatorship of the proletariat thus establishing
a socialist state. In doing so, the proletariat had inherited the task of
developing the capitalist stage of development of the instruments of
production (machinery), commencing the rapid introduction of socialist
relations of production into the productive forces and proceed with
mechanisation of the nations industry and agriculture for the construction
of socialism. This task differs markedly from the task that confronts the
proletariat of industrialised nations and is, I think something to be
seriously considered in any analysis of the cause of the collapse of the
socialist states.
As I pointed out earlier, my contention; when the two-stage form of
socialist state, reaches the higher stage of development of the instruments
of production that corresponds to the socialist relations already in place
then the contradiction between the two forms of socialist state is resolved.
Until that time the 'transition to socialism'is incomplete, its economic
base is not fully developed and is insecure.
You each have rightly asked for citations upon which I had rested my
argument, these I give below:
A citation for John who raised a question from the Manifesto:
" I still maintain that a political party-and the party of the advanced
class in particular-would have no right to exist, would be unworthy of the
name of party, would be a non entity in any sense, if it refused to take
power when the opportunity offers."
Lenin C/W Vol. 26. p.90. 'Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power' (Oct.
1917)
On the The transitionl character of the "economic system", "transition to
socialism" not yet "recognised" as a socialist order:
"No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of
Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any
Communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic implies the
determination of Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and
not that the new economic system is recognised as a socialist order."
Lenin C/W Vol. 27. 'Left Wing Childishness..' p.335. (1918)
Transition to socialism:
"Under no circumstances, however, can we rest content with what we have
achieved because we have only just started the transition to socialism..."
Lenin C/W Vol. 27. p.245. "The Immediate Tasks Of The Soviet Government'
(1918)
On organisational tasks, a point arises on the distinction between Soviet
and Socialist republic,
only "after" becomes a Socialist republic:
"..because only after it has been fulfilled (in the main outlines) will it
be possible to say that Russia *has become* not only a Soviet, but also a
Socialist republic." (Lenins emphasis)
Ibid p. 243.
The DOP must "differ". The "basic forces" and "forms of social economy" the
"same" as any capitalist country:
"In Russia, the dictatorship of the proletariat must inevitably differ in
certain particulars from what it would be in the advanced countries, owing
to the very great backwardness and petty bourgeois character of our country.
But the basic forces --and the basic forms of social economy -- are the
same in Russia as in any capitalist country, so that the peculiarities can
apply only to what is of lesser importance"
Vol. 30. C/W. p.108. 'Econ. & politics in the era of the Dict.of the
Prolet.' (1919).
I hope this selection of quotes shows the basis for my argument, a basis
from which I now see little point in pursuing, although I hope we can
develop from this discussion a constructive examination of the differences
that exist between the two roads to socialism taking account of the factors
that I have mentioned concerning the instruments and forces of production.
Comrades, I beg your patience in regard to the delays in my replies, my
domestic situation at the moment does not allow for much time at my
computer.
fraternally Alan.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Javad Eskandarpour
> Sent: Friday, 1 September 2000 19:42
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [MLL] Marxist-Leninists & defending Stalin
>
>
> Comrades,
>
> In the Marxist-Leninist theory of state, we do not have the idea of "the
> transitional state", instead we have the idea of "withering away of the
> state". According to Dover, "the transitional state", or "the
> Soviet state"
> then existing under the
> proletarian dictatorship was not socialist and yet it was certainly not
> capitalist either, then the state identity must be defined. I
> consider such
> a state, as a transitional state under the dictatorship of the proletariat
> which undoubtedly gives it a socialist character from its inception and it
> seems to me that the transitional Soviet socialist state was almost
> completely 'transformed' into a fully fledged socialist state that could
> never be returned to capitalism". Where does Lenin suggest such a
> formulation?
> Dover answers this question as follows: "While Lenin did not at all times
> clearly define the Soviet state as a transitional state he continually
> revealed that he accepted that in practice it was in fact a transitional
> state, most clearly he identifying the task of
> the Soviet Socialist state as the 'transition to socialism', not,
> mark you,
> the task of transition from capitalism to communism". First. Dover
> speculates on, instead of a direct reference to Lenin's works, how Lenin
> "revealed that he accepted that in practice it was in fact a transitional
> state". Which "practice"? No reference to this "practice" either. Second,
> Dover confuses "the transition from capitalism to communism" with "the
> transitional state", which is supposedly neither capitalist not socialist.
> Dover thinks that the proletarian state, or the dictatorship of
> proletariat,
> must be "the transitional state" because a socialist society is in a
> transition from capitalism to communism; therefore, "the
> transitional state"
> must correspond to the the transitional nature of the society. This is an
> anti-Marxist-Leninist conclusion, in the tradition of the
> Social-Democrasy.
> Javad
>
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
