State Capitalism and stalinism - a question

72 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ungesund wrote: Amir1 either

Ungesund wrote:
Amir1 either says (which I think): This transitional state began during the time, which started as a transition from capitalism to socialism. Or: This transitional state began in the 1920's and before, there was a short period of socialism.

Amir1 does not understand what he is talking about. If we are Marxists we should judge a social system by it's economic basis. Lenin described the basis wich existed in 1920s as  multistructural:

"(1)patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming;

(2)small commodity production (this includcs the majority of those peasants who sell their grain);

(3)private capitalism;

(4)state capitalism;

(5)socialism.  "

Amir1 believes that this was a top of the revolution.

At the end of 1930s the situation was fundamentally different. In 1939 Stalin said about the total elimination of private industry. By this time collective farms covered 93.5 percent of peasant households. All the economy functioned according a single plan. We see that socialist mode of production replaced all other modes within transitory period. Socialist production that is preplanned and organized, turned, first,  into a dominating form and, on a later stage, into the only form of production. The socialist basis appeared.

Amir1 believes this was a degeneration of the revolution! Well...

Ungesund wrote:
If we had a common concept of "socialism"...

A cocept of socialism for Marxist is simple: we have socialism if we have the socialist basis.

Now a few words on superstructure - about possible forms of the proletarian dictatorship.

Ungesund wrote:
Wielding power in the interest of the proletariat does not mean dictatorship of the proletariat.

I see - a real socialism, they argue, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by  Stalinists or other bureaucratic and evil men who betray revolutions. But here is a qoute from the article in the Soviet newspaper printed in 1927:

"Here is some data on the activities of workplace meetings in Leningrad. During the first half of 1926-27, the workers submitted 11,868 proposals. More than 75 percent of these proposals were accepted by the administration, and only 11 percent were rejected and left unanswered. In 6 months tine, over 7 thousand proposals were incorporated and put into action. Simultaneously, there is an increase in the number of participants in workplace meetings. If we also examine large enterprises such as the “Red Triangle”, then we will see that in the first quarter of 1925-26, 2 231 people took part in the workplace meetings (13.4 percent of the total number of employees). And in the first quarter of 1926-27, the number of participants in workplace meetings was already 5,926 people, and it comprised 37.7 percent of the total number of employees in the factory.

On January 1, 1927, out of 767 directors of enterprisers that were a part of the trusts of national importance, the former workers comprised 475 people."

What is it if it is not a participation of workers in control and management? If the authorities are recruited from workers and peasants and take out policy in the interests of that very same workers and peasants - what is it if it is not the dictatorship of the proletariat?

Isn't it clear that when people as smart, different and heroic as Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Daniel Ortega, Ho –and the millions of people who followed them–all end up more or less in the same place, then it was a natural result under specific times and specific conditions?

A revolution should be compared to an act of childbirth: a baby  come into the world  weak and unwise. Imagine a man who says : " Look how this infant is weak and unreasonable, he is really degenerative". How would you call him? An idiot,I guess. "Degenerate yourself,you idiot! "

We had fifteen infants, fifteen countries who were the first to start socialist construction. How should we call  those who talk about "degenerative worker's states"?

 Leftcoms go further, they do not regard infants as a human been at all. It seems they believe their baby would be adult since the very first day...