Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
But Lenin wrote (in State and Revolution) that the withering away of the state begins at the very instance when the proletariat (the armed working class) takes power. The Commune-state is a state of a new type. The soviet state, alas, though not strangled at birth by the Wilsons and Churchills was subjected to grave injuries that led to its violent death at the hands of the Stalinist counterrevolution in the years 1935-1939. Shane Mage Comment Please explain. The form of the state? WL. **Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax professional in your neighborhood today. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=Tax+Return+Preparation+%26+Filingncid=emlcntusyelp0004) ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
Ralph Dumain Total idiocy, delusional nonsense, senseless gibberish, from first word to last. CB: This is wishful and lazy thinking a childish , whining critique, because you can't make a good argument. You are stumped, trumped and checkmated. Pitiful really. You should be embarassed. ^^ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
CB: Why use the term bourgeois if it wasn't form of capitalism ? ^^ It ceased to be a degenerated workers state when the possibility of a democratic opposition to Stalin within the CPSU based on Trotskyists/Bukharinists expired (1930). Comment Sometime around 1976, I purchased my first Collected Works of Lenin, all 45 volumes. I gave several Collected Works away to comrades with low wages. At any rate this afforded me to read Lenin as a totality and after a few years the history of the Russian - Soviet, Revolution played in my mind like a major motion picture. The point is that Lenin wrote voluminously on why one should not confuse a). the form of democracy and b). the existence of opposition groups in c). the party system . . . existing vertically and horizontally within the d). framework of the dictatorship of the proletariat . . . as systematic function and essence of e). the state. I never fear looking at reality for what it is and most certainly not Soviet History and the role of Stalin the individual and then the Stalin Regime. Comrade allow themselves to be guided by ideology and their most private individualized conception of democracy and refuse confronting things as simple as the difference between government and the state. The Stalin era evokes animal passions in some comrades, who if asked what is bureaucracy become confused and abandon Marxism all together, by first jettisoning the materialist conception of history. The above means democratic opposition . . .(as) possibility (transform) workers state. That is to say one can effect a qualitative change in the class essence of the state by changing its form of Constitutional rights. What this in reality means is that the property relations of a society can be changed by changing the form of Constitutional Rights but this explanation is far to generous, because the above does not ascend to the level of Constitutional regimes. Rather the above says that changing the rules governing the essence of opposition group WITHIN THE PARTY . . . . NOT THE STATE, changes the property relations, the law of value and the planning mechanism that blocks the law of anarchy of production: the hallmark of private capital. The Soviet state stopped being a worker state with bureaucratic distortion = degenerate, because party rules were changed. I do not mean to ever talk down to anyone and have struggled over the years to evolve a flat writing style that compresses complex concepts. What I am saying is that it is impossible to effect a qualitative change in any process without altering - injecting quantitatively, a NEW qualitative ingredient into that which is fundamental to the entire process. Then . . . then! everything dependent as interactivity, on that which is fundamental to the process, must in turn change. Not all at one time, but incrementally and change it must. Because democracy is not a defining trait of class essence IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to change democracy and change the state qualitatively with the qualitative being defined as the fundamentality being property form and its meaning in the daily life of everyone. Stated another way, the POLITICAL FORM of democracy . . .;-) defines the Constitutional regime. Even this is not saying enough because England and the US are both bourgeois democratic regimes with huge differences, that in the last instance boil down to the role of common law in England and its absence in America. This is due to the absence of feudal relations. That is no concept of noble obligation which was legalized as mediator of social relations between ruled and rulers. CB, you a damn lawyer, why do I have to write this and continuously explain the most elementary understanding of the Marxist approach to the state!!! (QUESTION: Is the US Constitution, as the law of the land, + the Senate and the House of Representative the government? No! It is the constitutional regime. The party is not the meaning of the Constitutional regime. The Supreme Soviet . . . what's the use. Why not read what Lenin says in addition to Trotsky? Straight off the block I can recall several articles where Lenin deal with this exact issue exhaustingly. Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg diverged on the exact same question a decade before the October Revolution. There is of course a reason why Lenin won and his name is attached to a highly evolved political doctrine. I thought we would at least get a chance to describe the formation of the gulag; the extra legal terrorists organization of the DOP; the role of Beria . . .. :-( WL. **Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax professional in your neighborhood today. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=Tax+Return+Preparation+%26+Filingncid=emlcntusyelp0004) ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
CB, you a damn lawyer, why do I have to write this and continuously explain the most elementary understanding of the Marxist approach to the state!!! ^^^ Waistline, I'm willing to discuss this with you but , you know, _on the surface_ at least, your discussion doesn't have the appearance of a clear understanding of what you are explaining. I'm willing to give you the benefit of a doubt , that you have some significant understanding from your many years of study and direct experience with capitalism from the standpoint of a socialist conscious proletarian. But you've got to give some consideration to my many years of experience as a predominantly mental laborer, writer, etc. Yea, I am a lawyer, and a long time student of materialism, so that means I got some good understanding of the state from Marx, Engels and Lenin's point of view. Lenin's fundamental discussion of the state relies especially upon Engels' anthropological book _The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State_. I'm a lawyer, and a student of anthropology and Marxist political economy and materialism. It was _The State and Revolution_ that was important in bringing me to Marxism. Lenin was a lawyer, etc., etc. So, what is it that you want to explain to me about the state ? And remember. You better come correct. Perhaps we should serialize _The State and Revolution_. Actually, I'm thinking these days the issues Lenin emphasizes in that book, non-electoral path to socialism are significantly turned into their opposite in our concrete circumstance. We might study _The State and Revolution_ to negate its thesis. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not the path for the U.S. It is _Imperialism_ and _Leftwing Communism_ that are most pertinent to our right here, right now The US state is too loaded for bear, including nukes, and the US population is too stupified with anti-Communism from the Cold War travesty/tragedy to build toward insurrection or a direct assault to take the state power. The US cannot be confronted into socialism. It will take a backdoor , bourgeois self-negating route. The capitalists will have to be allowed (as if we had a choice, and can stop them , smile) to take capitalism to such an extreme such that it turns into its opposite, on its own. In other words, the super dictatorship of the bourgeoisie/finance capitalists ( and it is important always to discuss the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie when discussing the dictatorship of the proletariat) will self-negate, turn into its opposite. Rather than the capitalists selling us the rope with which we hang them, we give them enough rope to hand themselves. We are seeing that now, as super imperialism is imploding. Amazingly, it is bourgeois and capitalist journalists , economist intellectuals and high bureaucrats who see we are all socialists now, want nationalization of the financial monopolies, see Marx as rising from the dead and call on him to save themselves from themselves, redbait themselves, almost begging for socialism. The bourgeois bureaucracy is in a mood for suicide, expropriating itself. Marx in The Historical Tendency of the Capitalist Mode of Production chapter of _Capital_ , and _Imperialism_ note how the monopoly-centralization-one capitalist kills many of capitalism is preparation for socialism. Emphaisis on discussion of the government function of the state is part of the anti-thesis of that of _The State and Revolution_. Rather than elections only being a measure of the maturity of the working class, they are where its at for, including going into the Democratic Party, that most despised proposition on the childish Left. That's a main lesson of the Obama tactic. More later ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
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 ? -Original Message- From: marxism-thaxis-boun...@lists.econ.utah.edu [mailto:marxism-thaxis-boun...@lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Charles Brown Sent: 23 February 2009 14:06 To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ? Phil Walden I would agree with Jim F that present day Russia is some form of state capitalism. On the nature of the former Soviet Union I think it was none of the alternatives offered by Jim (and by Trotskyism in the post-war period). It was a bureaucratic bourgeois state in which a surplus was extracted from the peasantry and workers but not surplus value (so it could not have been a form of capitalism). It ceased to be a degenerated workers state when the possibility of a democratic opposition to Stalin within the CPSU based on Trotskyists/Bukharinists expired (1930). I had been thinking of doing work on globalisation since the 1970s because none of the Trotskyist groups seems to understand what has happened or its significance. But then I realized that I have to go even further back to the Cold War, because post-war Trotskyism tried to impose its own schemas onto it and unfortunately no group built a developed understanding of the Cold War. Adam Westoby's COMMUNISM SINCE WORLD WAR TWO is however a good start, despite faults. Phil Walden ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
--- On Mon, 2/23/09, Phil Walden Date: Monday, February 23, 2009, 7:26 PM 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: Extracting surplus use-values ? I don't know if you are analyzing this based on the Marxist classics, but I believe that they contemplate that there are still surpluses generated during socialism, but that these are used to provide for social welfare funds for the eldersly, children, childcare, sick,intellectual workers, soldiers, etc. ^ CB: Why use the term bourgeois if it wasn't form of capitalism ? -Original Message- From: marxism-thaxis-boun...@lists.econ.utah.edu [mailto:marxism-thaxis-boun...@lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Charles Brown Sent: 23 February 2009 14:06 To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ? Phil Walden I would agree with Jim F that present day Russia is some form of state capitalism. On the nature of the former Soviet Union I think it was none of the alternatives offered by Jim (and by Trotskyism in the post-war period). It was a bureaucratic bourgeois state in which a surplus was extracted from the peasantry and workers but not surplus value (so it could not have been a form of capitalism). It ceased to be a degenerated workers state when the possibility of a democratic opposition to Stalin within the CPSU based on Trotskyists/Bukharinists expired (1930). I had been thinking of doing work on globalisation since the 1970s because none of the Trotskyist groups seems to understand what has happened or its significance. But then I realized that I have to go even further back to the Cold War, because post-war Trotskyism tried to impose its own schemas onto it and unfortunately no group built a developed understanding of the Cold War. Adam Westoby's COMMUNISM SINCE WORLD WAR TWO is however a good start, despite faults. Phil Walden ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
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 ? Comment Here in a nutshell is the political and ideological divergence. Anyone truly revolutionary self appointed task is organize the workers to overthrow the 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 matter. 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. . WL. 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 commodity 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. WL **Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax professional in your neighborhood today. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=Tax+Return+Preparation+%26+Filingncid=emlcntusyelp0004) ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
No. The withering away of the state is predicated upon a couple of things: the withering away of the need for massive organized armed bodies of men domestically and internationally; the destruction of the value relations and the resolution of class antagonism. I was reluctant to reply to the question posed by this thread because it seemed to pose matters outside the concept of the state as the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. For the state to begin its process of withering class antagonism - property as class, must be in the process of withering. Further, in Anti-Duhring, Marx and Engels outline the precondition for the state to wither away as state, founded and predicated on the concept of the state as the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The Soviet state as state was overthrown. In their comments, Marx and Engels wrote that only the residual aftermath of value would remain. Thus, riveting the state to the division of labor in society. Although administered by government the social safety net, welfare, housing, etc., is not the state. All government bureaucracies are not the meaning of the state, although the state as state has its bureaucracy, or it could not be an organized structure. I do not understand the Housing agency - HUD, to fall within the scope and meaning for the state as defined above by Lenin and Engels and Marx. Rather, HUD is an agency of the government as a bureaucracy. The Pentagon, a government agency is on the other hand a part of the state because of its function and role in society. WL. **Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agenciesncid=emlcntusyelp0003) ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
But Lenin wrote (in State and Revolution) that the withering away of the state begins at the very instance when the proletariat (the armed working class) takes power. The Commune-state is a state of a new type. The soviet state, alas, though not strangled at birth by the Wilsons and Churchills was subjected to grave injuries that led to its violent death at the hands of the Stalinist counterrevolution in the years 1935-1939. Shane Mage Comment Why do we don these absurd things? The reason is clear: firstly, because ours is a backward country; secondly, education in our country is at the lowest level; and thirdly., because we are receiving no assistance. Not a single civilized state is helping us. On the contrary. they are all working against us. Fourthly, owing to our state apparatus. We took over the old state apparatus, and this was unfortunate for us. Very often the state apparatus worker against us. In 1917, after we captured power, the situation was that the apparatus sabotaged us. This frightened us very much and we pleaded with the state officials: Please come back. They all came back, but this was unfortunate for us. (Lenin). Here is the genesis of the historically specific problem Lenin grappled with . . . in his words. Very often the state apparatus worker against us. Why and how is the subject of volumes of writing. WL. **Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agenciesncid=emlcntusyelp0003) ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
I would agree with Jim F that present day Russia is some form of state capitalism. On the nature of the former Soviet Union I think it was none of the alternatives offered by Jim (and by Trotskyism in the post-war period). It was a bureaucratic bourgeois state in which a surplus was extracted from the peasantry and workers but not surplus value (so it could not have been a form of capitalism). It ceased to be a degenerated workers state when the possibility of a democratic opposition to Stalin within the CPSU based on Trotskyists/Bukharinists expired (1930). I had been thinking of doing work on globalisation since the 1970s because none of the Trotskyist groups seems to understand what has happened or its significance. But then I realized that I have to go even further back to the Cold War, because post-war Trotskyism tried to impose its own schemas onto it and unfortunately no group built a developed understanding of the Cold War. Adam Westoby's COMMUNISM SINCE WORLD WAR TWO is however a good start, despite faults. Phil Walden -Original Message- From: marxism-thaxis-boun...@lists.econ.utah.edu [mailto:marxism-thaxis-boun...@lists.econ.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Farmelant Sent: 22 February 2009 00:53 To: cdb1...@prodigy.net; marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Cc: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ? Well in Russia the state renationalized most of the energy industry several years ago. Putin, as president, went a long way towards reestablishing the leading role of the state in the management of Russia's economy. The state is a major stockholder in many of Russia's largest companies. One of Putin's big achievements was to rein in the oligarchs who had taken control of much of Russia's economy under Yeltsin. All this course takes us back to a lot of the old debates over the nature of the former Soviet Union: was it socialist? was it state capitalist? a degenerate workers state? a bureacratic collectivism? And to those old debates we can now can add debates over the nature of contemporary post-Soviet Russia. The post-Soviet regimes of Yeltsin and Putin had the avowed aim of restoring capitalism, but it seems that the reality there is perhaps more complex. They never could entirely obliterate Soviet-era institutions and practices, and now, I suspect, that the current world economic practice may force the current government of Medvedev and Putin to revive many of the old Soviet policies. I suppose that we might characterize the current Russian economy as a kind of state capitalism with some socialist characteristics. Jim F. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
Total idiocy, delusional nonsense, senseless gibberish, from first word to last. At 09:53 PM 2/22/2009, Charles Brown wrote: I agree that these are the classical Marxist-Leninist theory, definitions, schema and order of the process, but I'm thinking that actuality, actual history, the concrete truth of this may not go down in as linear a fashion, as the a,b,c,1,2,3 of the theory. This would be applying Marx and Engels other warning against cookbooks and predictions about socialism and communism to their own sketch of how the state whithers away. So, the process of whithering away may in actuality be a zig-zag , one step whither, one step unwhither of the straightline of the abstract classical formulations For example, the Soviet state was a multinational state. The Russian state does not encompass all of the former Soviet territory. This might be seen as an early aspect of the total whithering away of the state there. Also, notice that there was relatively little bloodshed. The Soviet state did not go down fighting, not with a bang but a whimper ( as that Commie T.S. Eliot put it) Also, Soviet society was substantially without class antagonisms. This is one of the most important theoretical and praise of the Soviet Union points. The peaceful end of the multi-national state is an indicator of the lack of class antagonisms existing in the Soviet Union. Also, notice that the implication of my use of whithering away of the state is that some of what is left in Russia is _communism_ not socialism. The whithering away of the state ushers in communism. Obviously, since capitalist imperialist states still exist in the world and the Russian _state_ has nuclear weapons, the state has not totally whithered away. So, it would be a partial and harbinger whithering away that we see. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
Quantifying history and historical progression, all ways get me in trouble, yet this stops no one from quantifying history. I believe that the American state, as we know it is going to change at lightening speed, after a change in the property relations. What happens in America is very important to world history. The state can fall relatively peaceful without the outbreak of Civil War as was the case after the Lenin group seized power. However, the Bolshevik seizure of power was relatively peaceful. The fight came afterwards as the result of invasion. Invasion will not be one of our worry's. What happened with the fall of Soviet Power - 1989, outlines our future more or less. Marx wrote that the proletariat would have to fight for 50, 100, 200 years of wars and international wars not just to achieve power, but to make itself fit for the exercise of power. I am not sure if it is understood that it will take perhaps another 100 - 200 years, just to completely leave the old ritualized agrarian/feudal culture of Russia. One hundred years is nothing. Very much of China today is still feudal in its real actual and ritual behavior. Hundreds of millions of peasants, with an unbroken historical and written culture is mind boggling. Hence the stability of the system no matter what direction it lurches in. I am laughing because Mao had to tell everyone Marxism meant it is right to rebel. This of course does no excuse or justify state policy one way or another. There is a tendency to forget that the October Revolution was bound up with the transition from agrarian social and economic relations to industrial social and economic relations. Defining the October Revolution of 1917 as a revolution - transition, from capitalism to socialism is in my estimate extremely inaccurate and run against all the statistical data on the Russian - Soviet population from the early 1900's to 1950. One cannot build socialism in a country of peasants, or rather the socialism one builds, cannot overcome the law of value as commodity exchange. One can restrict the law of value in everything fundamental to the industrial infrastructure. What made the Soviet Union socialist rather than capitalism was its industrial infrastructure. The fact of the matter is that no one owned any aspect of heavy industry or light industry before the spread of the second economy unleashed by Nikita. When the state owns all the capital and establishes institutions that deploys labor based on a plan and not anarchy of production that is socialism. There of course are zero peasants in America. In Russia, so-called socialist accumulation, a hideous term that tells no one anything, was carved out of the backs of the peasants. What actually took place was the thousand year old battle of the towns - city-states, demand for cheap food stuff running into the culture and ritualized social life of the small producers. I have a bias for Polany on this issue. At any rate, is not the average Russian living on about 3 bucks a day today? I do agree that the process of the withering away of certain features of the state began with the class rule of the proletariat in the Soviet Union. And that Russia was no basket case in the 1960's, 1970's or 1980's. Don't quote me on it but I believe the 1980's rate of growth hovered around 3% of GDP with a lack of statistics in the second economy. WL. I agree that these are the classical Marxist-Leninist theory, definitions, schema and order of the process, but I'm thinking that actuality, actual history, the concrete truth of this may not go down in as linear a fashion, as the a,b,c,1,2,3 of the theory. This would be applying Marx and Engels other warning against cookbooks and predictions about socialism and communism to their own sketch of how the state whithers away. So, the process of whithering away may in actuality be a zig-zag , one step whither, one step unwhither of the straightline of the abstract classical formulations For example, the Soviet state was a multinational state. The Russian state does not encompass all of the former Soviet territory. This might be seen as an early aspect of the total whithering away of the state there. Also, notice that there was relatively little bloodshed. The Soviet state did not go down fighting, not with a bang but a whimper ( as that Commie T.S. Eliot put it) Also, Soviet society was substantially without class antagonisms. This is one of the most important theoretical and praise of the Soviet Union points. The peaceful end of the multi-national state is an indicator of the lack of class antagonisms existing in the Soviet Union. Also, notice that the implication of my use of whithering away of the state is that some of what is left in Russia is _communism_ not socialism. The whithering away of the state ushers in communism.
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
Wandering thoughts and notes related to the tread. From 1928 with Stalin's Industrialization of the Country speech and plan, to his death in 1953, the polices of forced collectivization, rapid industrialization and centralized planning through a series of five year plans held complete sway. Without question the execution of Bukharin and other leaders, and the imprisonment of tens of thousands of rank and file communists - party members, many of whom were innocent of any wrong doings, had much to do with the silencing of the voices of opposition. However, it would be wrong to assume that Stalin eliminated diversity of thought and policy, which simply adapted to that peculiar form of Soviet speak. Everyone simple wrote in the form of Stalin and those unfamiliar with this form of Soviet speak will find it all but impossible to follow the various intense forms of political struggle and divergence. It would be horribly wrong to think for a moment that Stalin's economic polices were not overwhelmingly supported by the population. The idea that violence alone can account for the popularity of Stalin views is equally wrong and a failure to understand elementary politics. The people loved Stalin beyond comprehension of those not familiar with politics and how people actually think things out. American actually did vote for Bush W. and he was horrible stupid by all accounts. Stalin was by no mans unlearned. Acceptance of Stalin's view and approach to building socialism was supported because it worked. The success was so obvious in the building of entire new towns, roads, factories and cities. Within an incredibly short time, (less than the time I worked and retired from Chrysler), the Soviet Union leaped from a semi-feudal country and backwardness into the front ranks of the industrialized countries. One has to visualize this pace of development; place themselves in this environment of going to work everyday and look out at Soviet society as a citizen rather than a detach analyst trapped by ones own ideological inclination. One needs go to the country side and see how industrialization of the country uproots the old society and why dozens of communists sent to set up schools were murdered and many of the female teachers raped and then murdered. The resistance is complex and mirrors the resistance capital encounters in injecting the money economy into a historically stable natural economy. Somewhere on the A-List I produced the statistics of how fast the population moved from peasant to proletariat, and it is breathtaking. Then what was traced was the impact of these peasants turned proletarian on organization and why the organizations would collapse. The spontaneous life as culture of the new proletarian is to convert all organizations into form of the extended family. To understand this one has to go there and experience it. The new proletariat was less than 10 years old and Lenin himself wanted only to recruit proletarians into the party who had a minimum of 10 years factory seniority! I no longer have the books with all the stats, but remember some and have some from the book Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union. In the first year of the 5 year plan industrial production grew by 11 percent. From 1928 to 1940 the industrial sector grew from 28% of the economy to 45 percent of the economy. Between 1928 and 1937 heavy industry output of total manufacturing output grew from 31 percent to 63%. The illiteracy rate drop from 56 percent to 20 percent and guess who Stalin wrote for and to? You can bet it was not the intelligentsia. Here I am condoning nothing but stating the obvious facts so misunderstood by our own intelligentsia. Further, it is a profound misunderstanding that Stalin was not a first rate theoretician with a gigantic memory, which he used against his opponents. He really understood all the issues. Whatever his demons, paranoia, masochism and narsssacism, he understood quantitative dimensions of the social process; specifically its nodal point and easily outflanked his opponents, who deeply felt political struggle are won and lost on the basis of an abstract theoretical profundity. More often than not his opponents were more wrong than he was and he understood that by reading what they wrote. The reason Lenin recruited Stalin into the upper level of the party is based on his early writings. On his death bed Lenin saw something grievously wrong with Stalin's personality, in the way he treated Lenin's wife. This incident and Stalin's later apology is perhaps the only time he apologized to anyone. To understand the rise of Stalin to power all one has to do is read his foundations of Leninism and compare it to what Bukharin wrote and then what Trotsky wrote. The whole damn party voted for Stalin after reading the material published
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ? (lenin on class in 1919
Socialism means the abolition of classes. The dictatorship of the proletariat has done all it could to abolish classes. But classes cannot be abolished at one stroke. And classes still remain and will remain in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship will become unnecessary when classes disappear. Without the dictatorship of the proletariat they will not disappear. Classes have remained, but in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat every class has undergone a change, and the relations between the classes have also changed. The class struggle does not disappear under the dictatorship of the proletariat; it merely assumes different forms. Under capitalism the proletariat was an oppressed class, a class which had been deprived of the means of production, the only class which stood directly and completely opposed to the bourgeoisie, and therefore the only one capable of being revolutionary to the very end. Having overthrown the bourgeoisie and conquered political power, the proletariat has become the ruling class; it wields state power, it exercises control over means of production already socialised; it guides the wavering and intermediary elements and classes; it crushes the increasingly stubborn resistance of the exploiters. All these are specific tasks of the class struggle, tasks which the proletariat formerly did not and could not have set itself. The class of exploiters, the landowners and capitalists, has not disappeared and cannot disappear all at once under the dictatorship of the proletariat. The exploiters have been smashed, but not destroyed. They still have an inter national base in the form of international capital, of which they are a branch. They still retain certain means of production in part, they still have money, they still have vast social connections. Because they have been defeated, the energy of their resistance has increased a hundred and a thousandfold. The “art” of state, military and economic administration gives them a superiority, and a very great superiority, so that their importance is incomparably greater than their numerical proportion of the population. The class struggle waged by the overthrown exploiters against the victorious vanguard of the exploited, i.e., the proletariat, has become incomparably more bitter. And it cannot be otherwise in the case of a revolution, unless this concept is replaced (as it is by all the heroes of the Second International) by reformist illusions. Lastly, the peasants, like the petty bourgeoisie in general, occupy a half-way, intermediate position even under the dictatorship of the proletariat: on the one hand, they are a fairly large (and in backward Russia, a vast) mass of working people, united by the common interest of all working people to emancipate themselves from the landowner and the capitalist; on the other hand, they are disunited small proprietors, property-owners and traders. Such an economic position inevitably causes them to vacillate between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. In view of the acute form which the struggle between these two classes has assumed, in view of the incredibly severe break up of all social relations, and in view of the great attachment of the peasants and the petty bourgeoisie generally to the old, the routine, and the unchanging, it is only natural that we should inevitably find them swinging from one side to the other, that we should find them wavering, changeable, uncertain, and so on. In relation to this class—or to these social elements—the proletariat must strive to establish its influence over it, to guide it. To give leadership to the vacillating and unstable—such is the task of the proletariat. If we compare all the basic forces or classes and their interrelations, as modified by the dictatorship of the proletariat, we shall realise how unutterably nonsensical and theoretically stupid is the common petty-bourgeois idea shared by all representatives of the Second International, that the transition to socialism is possible “by means of democracy” in general. The fundamental source of this error lies in the prejudice inherited from the bourgeoisie that “democracy” is something absolute and above classes. As a matter of fact, democracy itself passes into an entirely new phase under the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the class struggle rises to a higher level, dominating over each and every form. General talk about freedom, equality and democracy is in fact but a blind repetition of concepts shaped by the relations of commodity production. To attempt to solve the concrete problems of the dictatorship of the proletariat by such generalities is tantamount to accepting the theories and principles of the bourgeoisie in their entirety. From the point of view of the proletariat, the question can be put only in the
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:47:31 -0800 (PST) Charles Brown cdb1...@prodigy.net writes: http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/02/social-collapse-best-practices.html Someone named Orlov says in the essay linked above: When the Soviet system went away, many people lost their jobs, everyone lost their savings, wages and pensions were held back for months, their value was wiped out by hyperinflation, there shortages of food, gasoline, medicine, consumer goods, there was a large increase in crime and violence, and yet Russian society did not collapse. Somehow, the Russians found ways to muddle through. How was that possible? It turns out that many aspects of the Soviet system were paradoxically resilient in the face of system-wide collapse, ^ CB: Evidently, the SU had more of a grass roots and democratic society , working class people's world there all along than a lot of observers and critics, West and East , thought. Was this a paradox or was it proof that working people ran things more than critics claimed ? The Socialist Workers Party (USA) has long been insistent that Russia remains a kind of workers state. Their formulations strike me as nutty, but I think that they have stumbled on to a facet of post-Soviet life that merits further exploration, which is that many aspects of the Soviet system have managed to survive the collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, given the recent economic downturn which has now begun to impact Russia, it is quite possible that we might see Russia reverting back to Soviet-style economic and social policies in order to maintain order. It also seems to be the case that the same is true for some of the other former Warsaw Pact countries as well. The Czech Republic for instance has since 1989 been governed mostly by rightwing governments that have been avowedly committed to neoliberal economic policies, and yet I have read that much of the social safety net that was built up under the Communist regime has remained more or less in place since 1989. That indeed it has been the continuing existence of this social safety net that made it possible for the post-Communists governments to gain the acquiescence of the Czech masses in the creation of a market economy there. That the author evidently didn't expect this, suggests he didn't quite understand fully what was going on at the base of his country. ^ many institutions continued to function, and the living arrangement was such that people did not lose access to food, shelter or transportation, and could survive even without an income. The Soviet economic system failed to thrive, and the Communist experiment at constructing a worker's paradise on earth was, in the end, a failure. ^ CB: Or maybe the collapse of the Soviet state was the state whithering away, as Marx prognosticated. And what is left is closer to the free association of free producers, or whatever, Since Marx didn't predict a workers paradise, maybe this author is looking for the wrong thing, and what is there is closer to what Marx envisioned than he thinks. Since the collapse of the Soviet state, I've always been interested in the reports like this one that people continued to survive without income or wages. That means that the money system, the wage system went poof ! That's what is supposed to happen in communism. Very interesting. ^^ But as a side effect it inadvertently achieved a high level of collapse-preparedness. ^^ CB: Maybe it wasn't so inadvertent. Maybe the big ,bad Soviet state was a protective, scary mask worn to ward off the vicious imperialist system, and the real future society was grown on purpose underneath, with hardy roots. It is not likely an accident that the society he describes survived and functions. You can be sure that they are growing a lot of local food in gardens. ^ In comparison, the American system could produce significantly better results, for time, but at the cost of creating and perpetuating a living arrangement that is very fragile, and not at all capable of holding together through the inevitable crash. Even after the Soviet economy evaporated and the government largely shut down, Russians still had plenty left for them to work with. ^ CB: My estimate is that he is mistaken that this was inadvertent. It was not a paradise, but it was a place where the working class was empowered and running their own lives. ^^ And so there is a wealth of useful information and insight that we can extract from the Russian experience, which we can then turn around and put to good use in helping us improvise a new living arrangement here in the United States � one that is more likely to be survivable. ^^ CB: Hopefully. But unfortunately, we don't have socialism, and they did. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
What is socialism? ...we could start or continue our conversation having a clear and Communist understanding of socialism in this particular moment. What do you think? Let me know if you are interested so we could base our discussion on the soviet experience on solid ground...materialist ground...for example: under which conditions the State whiter away? Were those conditions given in 1917? Are there historical evidence of the existence of communist minorities interpretations of that particular moment of human history? Why events had developed the way they did? Let me know if we could deepen our debate on different grounds... --- On Sat, 2/21/09, Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com wrote: From: Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ? To: cdb1...@prodigy.net, marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Cc: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu, a-l...@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Saturday, February 21, 2009, 5:44 PM On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:47:31 -0800 (PST) Charles Brown cdb1...@prodigy.net writes: http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/02/social-collapse-best-practices.html Someone named Orlov says in the essay linked above: When the Soviet system went away, many people lost their jobs, everyone lost their savings, wages and pensions were held back for months, their value was wiped out by hyperinflation, there shortages of food, gasoline, medicine, consumer goods, there was a large increase in crime and violence, and yet Russian society did not collapse. Somehow, the Russians found ways to muddle through. How was that possible? It turns out that many aspects of the Soviet system were paradoxically resilient in the face of system-wide collapse, ^ CB: Evidently, the SU had more of a grass roots and democratic society , working class people's world there all along than a lot of observers and critics, West and East , thought. Was this a paradox or was it proof that working people ran things more than critics claimed ? The Socialist Workers Party (USA) has long been insistent that Russia remains a kind of workers state. Their formulations strike me as nutty, but I think that they have stumbled on to a facet of post-Soviet life that merits further exploration, which is that many aspects of the Soviet system have managed to survive the collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, given the recent economic downturn which has now begun to impact Russia, it is quite possible that we might see Russia reverting back to Soviet-style economic and social policies in order to maintain order. It also seems to be the case that the same is true for some of the other former Warsaw Pact countries as well. The Czech Republic for instance has since 1989 been governed mostly by rightwing governments that have been avowedly committed to neoliberal economic policies, and yet I have read that much of the social safety net that was built up under the Communist regime has remained more or less in place since 1989. That indeed it has been the continuing existence of this social safety net that made it possible for the post-Communists governments to gain the acquiescence of the Czech masses in the creation of a market economy there. That the author evidently didn't expect this, suggests he didn't quite understand fully what was going on at the base of his country. ^ many institutions continued to function, and the living arrangement was such that people did not lose access to food, shelter or transportation, and could survive even without an income. The Soviet economic system failed to thrive, and the Communist experiment at constructing a worker's paradise on earth was, in the end, a failure. ^ CB: Or maybe the collapse of the Soviet state was the state whithering away, as Marx prognosticated. And what is left is closer to the free association of free producers, or whatever, Since Marx didn't predict a workers paradise, maybe this author is looking for the wrong thing, and what is there is closer to what Marx envisioned than he thinks. Since the collapse of the Soviet state, I've always been interested in the reports like this one that people continued to survive without income or wages. That means that the money system, the wage system went poof ! That's what is supposed to happen in communism. Very interesting. ^^ But as a side effect it inadvertently achieved a high level of collapse-preparedness. ^^ CB: Maybe it wasn't so inadvertent. Maybe the big ,bad Soviet state was a protective, scary mask worn to ward off the vicious imperialist system, and the real future society was grown on purpose underneath, with hardy roots. It is not likely an accident that the society he describes survived and functions. You can be sure that they are growing a lot of local food in gardens. ^ In comparison, the American system could produce
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
--- On Sat, 2/21/09, Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com wrote: From: Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com The Socialist Workers Party (USA) has long been insistent that Russia remains a kind of workers state. Their formulations strike me as nutty, but I think that they have stumbled on to a facet of post-Soviet life that merits further exploration, which is that many aspects of the Soviet system have managed to survive the collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, given the recent economic downturn which has now begun to impact Russia, it is quite possible that we might see Russia reverting back to Soviet-style economic and social policies in order to maintain order. It also seems to be the case that the same is true for some of the other former Warsaw Pact countries as well. The Czech Republic for instance has since 1989 been governed mostly by rightwing governments that have been avowedly committed to neoliberal economic policies, and yet I have read that much of the social safety net that was built up under the Communist regime has remained more or less in place since 1989. That indeed it has been the continuing existence of this social safety net that made it possible for the post-Communists governments to gain the acquiescence of the Czech masses in the creation of a market economy there. ^^ CB: It is interesting that the social safety net remained, because as I understand it, neo-liberalism is supposed to strip away welfare and the social safety net. So, perhaps the name was neoliberalism but the facts on the ground were not so neo-liberal. It really will be interesting to see what happens now if the world wide recession/depression batters what ever free-market institutions that were actually established in Eastern Europe, Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union. Their stock markets are likely to be more fragile and limited than those in the US and Western Europe. A crash of neo-phyte stock markets could be their end or lead to their permanent limitation. Besides the social safety net, how far could they really go in privatizing basic means of production and basic necessities industries, such as food, utilities, mass transit, water, gas, electricity, telephone? Those are only half private in the US. It probably wouldn't be a very big step to nationalize them - permanently. The same with the banking system. In Eastern Europe, and countries like Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania with no Russian troops there anymore, there may be little reason to resent socialist organization, socialist _self_organization and self-determination. Perhaps socialism will come as a negation of the negation of the first experience of socialism. They don't have to call it socialism or communism Just call it economic democracy and freedom or social democracy or democratic socialism. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither
What is socialism? ^ CB: Abolition of private property in the basic means of production. ^ ...we could start or continue our conversation having a clear and Communist understanding of socialism in this particular moment. What do you think? Let me know if you are interested so we could base our discussion on the soviet experience on solid ground...materialist ground...for example: under which conditions the State whiter away? Were those conditions given in 1917? Are there historical evidence of the existence of communist minorities interpretations of that particular moment of human history? Why events had developed the way they did? Let me know if we could deepen our debate on different grounds... ^^^ CB: Tell us what different grounds. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:35:43 -0800 (PST) Charles Brown cdb1...@prodigy.net writes: --- On Sat, 2/21/09, Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com wrote: From: Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com The Socialist Workers Party (USA) has long been insistent that Russia remains a kind of workers state. Their formulations strike me as nutty, but I think that they have stumbled on to a facet of post-Soviet life that merits further exploration, which is that many aspects of the Soviet system have managed to survive the collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, given the recent economic downturn which has now begun to impact Russia, it is quite possible that we might see Russia reverting back to Soviet-style economic and social policies in order to maintain order. It also seems to be the case that the same is true for some of the other former Warsaw Pact countries as well. The Czech Republic for instance has since 1989 been governed mostly by rightwing governments that have been avowedly committed to neoliberal economic policies, and yet I have read that much of the social safety net that was built up under the Communist regime has remained more or less in place since 1989. That indeed it has been the continuing existence of this social safety net that made it possible for the post-Communists governments to gain the acquiescence of the Czech masses in the creation of a market economy there. ^^ CB: It is interesting that the social safety net remained, because as I understand it, neo-liberalism is supposed to strip away welfare and the social safety net. So, perhaps the name was neoliberalism but the facts on the ground were not so neo-liberal. It really will be interesting to see what happens now if the world wide recession/depression batters what ever free-market institutions that were actually established in Eastern Europe, Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union. Their stock markets are likely to be more fragile and limited than those in the US and Western Europe. A crash of neo-phyte stock markets could be their end or lead to their permanent limitation. Besides the social safety net, how far could they really go in privatizing basic means of production and basic necessities industries, such as food, utilities, mass transit, water, gas, electricity, telephone? Those are only half private in the US. It probably wouldn't be a very big step to nationalize them - permanently. The same with the banking system. Well in Russia the state renationalized most of the energy industry several years ago. Putin, as president, went a long way towards reestablishing the leading role of the state in the management of Russia's economy. The state is a major stockholder in many of Russia's largest companies. One of Putin's big achievements was to rein in the oligarchs who had taken control of much of Russia's economy under Yeltsin. All this course takes us back to a lot of the old debates over the nature of the former Soviet Union: was it socialist? was it state capitalist? a degenerate workers state? a bureacratic collectivism? And to those old debates we can now can add debates over the nature of contemporary post-Soviet Russia. The post-Soviet regimes of Yeltsin and Putin had the avowed aim of restoring capitalism, but it seems that the reality there is perhaps more complex. They never could entirely obliterate Soviet-era institutions and practices, and now, I suspect, that the current world economic practice may force the current government of Medvedev and Putin to revive many of the old Soviet policies. I suppose that we might characterize the current Russian economy as a kind of state capitalism with some socialist characteristics. Jim F. In Eastern Europe, and countries like Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania with no Russian troops there anymore, there may be little reason to resent socialist organization, socialist _self_organization and self-determination. Perhaps socialism will come as a negation of the negation of the first experience of socialism. They don't have to call it socialism or communism Just call it economic democracy and freedom or social democracy or democratic socialism. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis Click to learn about options trading and get the latest information. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTIzQaKqKDWtUHB687b2RagjNMBwhGf2qCMhoLUSDzR8181lroxupC/ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
--- On Sun, 2/22/09, Jim Farmelant wrote: Well in Russia the state renationalized most of the energy industry several years ago. Putin, as president, went a long way towards reestablishing the leading role of the state in the management of Russia's economy. The state is a major stockholder in many of Russia's largest companies. One of Putin's big achievements was to rein in the oligarchs who had taken control of much of Russia's economy under Yeltsin. All this course takes us back to a lot of the old debates over the nature of the former Soviet Union: was it socialist? was it state capitalist? a degenerate workers state? a bureacratic collectivism? And to those old debates we can now can add debates over the nature of contemporary post-Soviet Russia. The post-Soviet regimes of Yeltsin and Putin had the avowed aim of restoring capitalism, but it seems that the reality there is perhaps more complex. They never could entirely obliterate Soviet-era institutions and practices, and now, I suspect, that the current world economic practice may force the current government of Medvedev and Putin to revive many of the old Soviet policies. I suppose that we might characterize the current Russian economy as a kind of state capitalism with some socialist characteristics. Jim F. CB: The overall historical process might be zig-zagging toward socialism, rather than moving in a straight line. One step forward two steps backward...one step right two and a half steps to the left. You do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around. That's what it's all about. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
Also, notice the Soviet state did not kill a lot of people when it went away. That's another characteristic of the process that fits the term whither. Away not with a bang but a whimper. CB --- On Sun, 2/22/09, Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com wrote: From: Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ? To: cdb1...@prodigy.net, marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Cc: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Date: Sunday, February 22, 2009, 12:53 AM On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:35:43 -0800 (PST) Charles Brown cdb1...@prodigy.net writes: --- On Sat, 2/21/09, Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com wrote: From: Jim Farmelant farmela...@juno.com The Socialist Workers Party (USA) has long been insistent that Russia remains a kind of workers state. Their formulations strike me as nutty, but I think that they have stumbled on to a facet of post-Soviet life that merits further exploration, which is that many aspects of the Soviet system have managed to survive the collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed, given the recent economic downturn which has now begun to impact Russia, it is quite possible that we might see Russia reverting back to Soviet-style economic and social policies in order to maintain order. It also seems to be the case that the same is true for some of the other former Warsaw Pact countries as well. The Czech Republic for instance has since 1989 been governed mostly by rightwing governments that have been avowedly committed to neoliberal economic policies, and yet I have read that much of the social safety net that was built up under the Communist regime has remained more or less in place since 1989. That indeed it has been the continuing existence of this social safety net that made it possible for the post-Communists governments to gain the acquiescence of the Czech masses in the creation of a market economy there. ^^ CB: It is interesting that the social safety net remained, because as I understand it, neo-liberalism is supposed to strip away welfare and the social safety net. So, perhaps the name was neoliberalism but the facts on the ground were not so neo-liberal. It really will be interesting to see what happens now if the world wide recession/depression batters what ever free-market institutions that were actually established in Eastern Europe, Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union. Their stock markets are likely to be more fragile and limited than those in the US and Western Europe. A crash of neo-phyte stock markets could be their end or lead to their permanent limitation. Besides the social safety net, how far could they really go in privatizing basic means of production and basic necessities industries, such as food, utilities, mass transit, water, gas, electricity, telephone? Those are only half private in the US. It probably wouldn't be a very big step to nationalize them - permanently. The same with the banking system. Well in Russia the state renationalized most of the energy industry several years ago. Putin, as president, went a long way towards reestablishing the leading role of the state in the management of Russia's economy. The state is a major stockholder in many of Russia's largest companies. One of Putin's big achievements was to rein in the oligarchs who had taken control of much of Russia's economy under Yeltsin. All this course takes us back to a lot of the old debates over the nature of the former Soviet Union: was it socialist? was it state capitalist? a degenerate workers state? a bureacratic collectivism? And to those old debates we can now can add debates over the nature of contemporary post-Soviet Russia. The post-Soviet regimes of Yeltsin and Putin had the avowed aim of restoring capitalism, but it seems that the reality there is perhaps more complex. They never could entirely obliterate Soviet-era institutions and practices, and now, I suspect, that the current world economic practice may force the current government of Medvedev and Putin to revive many of the old Soviet policies. I suppose that we might characterize the current Russian economy as a kind of state capitalism with some socialist characteristics. Jim F. In Eastern Europe, and countries like Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania with no Russian troops there anymore, there may be little reason to resent socialist organization, socialist _self_organization and self-determination. Perhaps socialism will come as a negation of the negation of the first experience of socialism. They don't have to call it socialism or communism Just call it economic democracy and freedom or social democracy or democratic socialism
[Marxism-Thaxis] Did the Soviet state whither away ?
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/02/social-collapse-best-practices.html Someone named Orlov says in the essay linked above: When the Soviet system went away, many people lost their jobs, everyone lost their savings, wages and pensions were held back for months, their value was wiped out by hyperinflation, there shortages of food, gasoline, medicine, consumer goods, there was a large increase in crime and violence, and yet Russian society did not collapse. Somehow, the Russians found ways to muddle through. How was that possible? It turns out that many aspects of the Soviet system were paradoxically resilient in the face of system-wide collapse, ^ CB: Evidently, the SU had more of a grass roots and democratic society , working class people's world there all along than a lot of observers and critics, West and East , thought. Was this a paradox or was it proof that working people ran things more than critics claimed ? That the author evidently didn't expect this, suggests he didn't quite understand fully what was going on at the base of his country. ^ many institutions continued to function, and the living arrangement was such that people did not lose access to food, shelter or transportation, and could survive even without an income. The Soviet economic system failed to thrive, and the Communist experiment at constructing a worker's paradise on earth was, in the end, a failure. ^ CB: Or maybe the collapse of the Soviet state was the state whithering away, as Marx prognosticated. And what is left is closer to the free association of free producers, or whatever, Since Marx didn't predict a workers paradise, maybe this author is looking for the wrong thing, and what is there is closer to what Marx envisioned than he thinks. Since the collapse of the Soviet state, I've always been interested in the reports like this one that people continued to survive without income or wages. That means that the money system, the wage system went poof ! That's what is supposed to happen in communism. Very interesting. ^^ But as a side effect it inadvertently achieved a high level of collapse-preparedness. ^^ CB: Maybe it wasn't so inadvertent. Maybe the big ,bad Soviet state was a protective, scary mask worn to ward off the vicious imperialist system, and the real future society was grown on purpose underneath, with hardy roots. It is not likely an accident that the society he describes survived and functions. You can be sure that they are growing a lot of local food in gardens. ^ In comparison, the American system could produce significantly better results, for time, but at the cost of creating and perpetuating a living arrangement that is very fragile, and not at all capable of holding together through the inevitable crash. Even after the Soviet economy evaporated and the government largely shut down, Russians still had plenty left for them to work with. ^ CB: My estimate is that he is mistaken that this was inadvertent. It was not a paradise, but it was a place where the working class was empowered and running their own lives. ^^ And so there is a wealth of useful information and insight that we can extract from the Russian experience, which we can then turn around and put to good use in helping us improvise a new living arrangement here in the United States – one that is more likely to be survivable. ^^ CB: Hopefully. But unfortunately, we don't have socialism, and they did. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
