I have just noticed from re-reading Redbedhead commentsattacking the Trotskyist concept that Capitalist inroads inRussia were a move towards another rising class and that elementsof this class being expropriated is a move back towardsthe Proletariat refracted politically through a BureaucraticCaste. Imperialism’s attitudte to different changes inRussia confirms the Trotskyist analysis. They praised Russiaup when Capitalist inroads deepened and were hysterically hostilewhen that major oligarch (which I cannot spell)ended up in prisonfor years by trying to weaken the Bureucracy’s control ofRussia’s natural resources.
Comment by Anthony Brain
Friday 21 August 2009
Document number 2 submitted by me for debate in Socialist Unity on Workers' States
Reply to Redbedhead and Alfie
Redbedhead falsely asserts that I forgot the necessity of extending World Socialist Revolution as a key part of Permanent Revolution. It is ABC of Revolutionary Marxism that you cannot build Socialism in one country. The political counter-revolution of Stalinism was a reflection of Imperialist pressures on an isolated workers’ state. Imperialism also building up a Bourgeois class from 1990 in Russia by gaining the most out of Stalinism’s implosion is another proof you cannot build Socialism in one country. This Bourgeois class was subordinate to the Bureaucracy. That is why they utilised layers of Bureaucrats concillationist to them as an intermediate stage back to Capitalism. If the Capitalists could rule directly for themselves they would have dumped those Bureaucrats at another stage of Capitalist restoration.
Redbedhead confuses intervention by a Bourgeois state to salvage Capitalist firms; concessions made to the workers (NHS); and those societies where Capitalism has been overthrown. This author (Redbedhead) suggests that the NHS is an inter-Capitalist dispute. Then he goes on to talk about it being a battle over profitability. Do you defend the NHS against privatisation? It is a major gain for British workers because it contains in embryo a post-Capitalist society despite its distortion by the Law of Value. Trotsky argued in the Revolution Betrayed that when workplaces/industries are nationalised in a Capitalist society it strengthens the workers who work there. He argued Capital tries to limit those concessions except for when they are bailing out Capitalist firms because the workers are in a stronger position to challenge Capitalism. That is why Trotsky dismissed State Capitalism as impossibility not only due to Capitalist competition via the Law of Value but because workers would have just one enemy: - the State.
The dual crisis in Russia from 1990 of extreme Bureaucratic pillage and Capitalist inroads (especially from 1992 to 2000) which set back Russia for decades. Redbedhead in dismissing inter-Bureaucratic struggles and workers resistance to this dual crisis as inter-Capitalist ends up with an abstentionist position. As Trotsky said when writing In Defence of Marxism workers will not make new gains unless they defend present ones. Trotskyists seize the chances from more resources going into nationalised industries and social/public services in order to strengthen workers confidence to begin a fight which culminates in Political Revolution with social consequences. There are two examples of this I cited in my previous post.
There is a close co-relation between what happens in the workers’ states in relation to Imperialist countries and semi-Colonies. Despite the crimes of Stalinism millions of workers within the Imperialist countries looked to the Soviet Union as an alternative society to Capitalism due to a depression from 1929 to 1939. From the late 1940s with a boom in the major Imperialist countries Stalinist crimes played into the Liberal Bourgeois hands of salvaging Capitalism. At the same time millions of workers within these Imperialist countries knew about social gains of these workers’ states. Within the semi-Colonies the extension of Socialist revolutions into China; Indochina; Cuba and Nicaragua showed what could be achieved once Capitalism is overthrown.
There was enormous potential with the beginning of incipient Political Revolutions in Eastern Europe in 1989 but due to concillationist elements to Imperialism winning out, dual problems I referred to in Russia apply to Eastern Europe. The ex-GDR and Kosovo are Capitalist states because socialised property relations can only be re-established by overthrowing those Bourgeois states. Except for those two regions Capitalism has not been restored because the Stalinist Bureaucracies still rule Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet states.
Due to millions of workers within the Imperialist countries not understanding Bureaucracies in workers’ states when the Soviet Union broke up is one main reason why the Liberal Bourgeois ideological offensive that Capitalism had been restored in 1992. It was this ideological confusion which played into Blairism’s hands in Britain The majority of middle class layers in these countries made a major impressionistic mistake that Capitalism had destroyed Russia for a whole period.
By the late 1990s section of the middle class fearing a major world Capitalist depression arising from a collapse of the Tiger economies in 1997. There was also a rejection by these layers of Capitalist inroads into the workers’ states. By 1999 the anti-Globalisation movement attacked changes towards a market economy in Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet states. In the same year there was NATO’s bombing of FRY which many middle class elements feared would lead to World War 3. This on top of a financial crisis in 1998 caused intermediate layers within the Russian Bureaucracy to salvage Russia as a workers’ state.
By the Russian Bureaucracy stopping American Imperialism’s attempts at world domination such as opposing America’s bombing of Iraq in December 1998 and the rise of China as a major power shows clearly the Third World masses what is necessary to end Imperialist super-exploitation of their countries. America’s war in Iraq weakened them further. The depression within Western Europe and America through credit debt. Capitalism is so weak now there are beginnings of mass upheavals against effects of their crisis. This Capitalist crisis combined with the decay of Eastern European and Russian Stalinism is the objective basis for an eventual resurgence of Trotskyism.
Alfie defends not recognising Stalinism’s crimes in China. Due to Stalinist policies the 1925-27 Chinese revolution was crushed. After the Chinese Maoists ziz-zaged mainly between Ultra-Left adventurism and Opportunism. Despite of this in areas the Chinese CP’s militia ruled there were some gains for at least certain lower class peasants. Maoism only overthrows Capitalism because they would not make a deal with them. It was World War 2 with Japanese Imperialism being driven out of China and inflation which led to the Maoists overthrowing Chaing-Kai-Shek. This shows that objective circumstances in very unique situations within semi-Colonies can despite a counter-revolutionary leadership can lead a Socialist revolution out of self-preservation.
There were terrible Stalinist crimes in China such as tens of millions who died due to the Great Leap Forward policy. The Cultural Revolution weakened China culturally with great pieces of Art being destroyed. In order to confuse Liberal Bourgeois elements claim falsely that Deng broke from Maoism. Deng won out because the Bureaucracy could only go forward by trading which has been skilfully used to transform China into one of the major workshops of the world.
During the 1980s and 1990s sections of China’s Bureaucracy allowed certain Capitalist firms bad conditions for the workers working in those factories. Trotskyists oppose this as treachery because if the Bureaucracy was overthrown it would not be necessary to make those concessions to Capitalism by workers re-clawing billions of Yuan from Bureaucratic pillage. Trotsky attacked what he called “the friends of the USSR” who did not look at real contradictions in that country. If the Political revolution does not occur in a medium to long-term China will go through a similar 1991-Soviet-type crisis. Undoubtedly the Chinese Bureaucracy has leant from this but is subject to same objective laws.
Comment by Anthony Brain
Redbedhead falsely asserts that I forgot the necessity of extending World Socialist Revolution as a key part of Permanent Revolution. It is ABC of Revolutionary Marxism that you cannot build Socialism in one country. The political counter-revolution of Stalinism was a reflection of Imperialist pressures on an isolated workers’ state. Imperialism also building up a Bourgeois class from 1990 in Russia by gaining the most out of Stalinism’s implosion is another proof you cannot build Socialism in one country. This Bourgeois class was subordinate to the Bureaucracy. That is why they utilised layers of Bureaucrats concillationist to them as an intermediate stage back to Capitalism. If the Capitalists could rule directly for themselves they would have dumped those Bureaucrats at another stage of Capitalist restoration.
Redbedhead confuses intervention by a Bourgeois state to salvage Capitalist firms; concessions made to the workers (NHS); and those societies where Capitalism has been overthrown. This author (Redbedhead) suggests that the NHS is an inter-Capitalist dispute. Then he goes on to talk about it being a battle over profitability. Do you defend the NHS against privatisation? It is a major gain for British workers because it contains in embryo a post-Capitalist society despite its distortion by the Law of Value. Trotsky argued in the Revolution Betrayed that when workplaces/industries are nationalised in a Capitalist society it strengthens the workers who work there. He argued Capital tries to limit those concessions except for when they are bailing out Capitalist firms because the workers are in a stronger position to challenge Capitalism. That is why Trotsky dismissed State Capitalism as impossibility not only due to Capitalist competition via the Law of Value but because workers would have just one enemy: - the State.
The dual crisis in Russia from 1990 of extreme Bureaucratic pillage and Capitalist inroads (especially from 1992 to 2000) which set back Russia for decades. Redbedhead in dismissing inter-Bureaucratic struggles and workers resistance to this dual crisis as inter-Capitalist ends up with an abstentionist position. As Trotsky said when writing In Defence of Marxism workers will not make new gains unless they defend present ones. Trotskyists seize the chances from more resources going into nationalised industries and social/public services in order to strengthen workers confidence to begin a fight which culminates in Political Revolution with social consequences. There are two examples of this I cited in my previous post.
There is a close co-relation between what happens in the workers’ states in relation to Imperialist countries and semi-Colonies. Despite the crimes of Stalinism millions of workers within the Imperialist countries looked to the Soviet Union as an alternative society to Capitalism due to a depression from 1929 to 1939. From the late 1940s with a boom in the major Imperialist countries Stalinist crimes played into the Liberal Bourgeois hands of salvaging Capitalism. At the same time millions of workers within these Imperialist countries knew about social gains of these workers’ states. Within the semi-Colonies the extension of Socialist revolutions into China; Indochina; Cuba and Nicaragua showed what could be achieved once Capitalism is overthrown.
There was enormous potential with the beginning of incipient Political Revolutions in Eastern Europe in 1989 but due to concillationist elements to Imperialism winning out, dual problems I referred to in Russia apply to Eastern Europe. The ex-GDR and Kosovo are Capitalist states because socialised property relations can only be re-established by overthrowing those Bourgeois states. Except for those two regions Capitalism has not been restored because the Stalinist Bureaucracies still rule Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet states.
Due to millions of workers within the Imperialist countries not understanding Bureaucracies in workers’ states when the Soviet Union broke up is one main reason why the Liberal Bourgeois ideological offensive that Capitalism had been restored in 1992. It was this ideological confusion which played into Blairism’s hands in Britain The majority of middle class layers in these countries made a major impressionistic mistake that Capitalism had destroyed Russia for a whole period.
By the late 1990s section of the middle class fearing a major world Capitalist depression arising from a collapse of the Tiger economies in 1997. There was also a rejection by these layers of Capitalist inroads into the workers’ states. By 1999 the anti-Globalisation movement attacked changes towards a market economy in Eastern Europe and ex-Soviet states. In the same year there was NATO’s bombing of FRY which many middle class elements feared would lead to World War 3. This on top of a financial crisis in 1998 caused intermediate layers within the Russian Bureaucracy to salvage Russia as a workers’ state.
By the Russian Bureaucracy stopping American Imperialism’s attempts at world domination such as opposing America’s bombing of Iraq in December 1998 and the rise of China as a major power shows clearly the Third World masses what is necessary to end Imperialist super-exploitation of their countries. America’s war in Iraq weakened them further. The depression within Western Europe and America through credit debt. Capitalism is so weak now there are beginnings of mass upheavals against effects of their crisis. This Capitalist crisis combined with the decay of Eastern European and Russian Stalinism is the objective basis for an eventual resurgence of Trotskyism.
Alfie defends not recognising Stalinism’s crimes in China. Due to Stalinist policies the 1925-27 Chinese revolution was crushed. After the Chinese Maoists ziz-zaged mainly between Ultra-Left adventurism and Opportunism. Despite of this in areas the Chinese CP’s militia ruled there were some gains for at least certain lower class peasants. Maoism only overthrows Capitalism because they would not make a deal with them. It was World War 2 with Japanese Imperialism being driven out of China and inflation which led to the Maoists overthrowing Chaing-Kai-Shek. This shows that objective circumstances in very unique situations within semi-Colonies can despite a counter-revolutionary leadership can lead a Socialist revolution out of self-preservation.
There were terrible Stalinist crimes in China such as tens of millions who died due to the Great Leap Forward policy. The Cultural Revolution weakened China culturally with great pieces of Art being destroyed. In order to confuse Liberal Bourgeois elements claim falsely that Deng broke from Maoism. Deng won out because the Bureaucracy could only go forward by trading which has been skilfully used to transform China into one of the major workshops of the world.
During the 1980s and 1990s sections of China’s Bureaucracy allowed certain Capitalist firms bad conditions for the workers working in those factories. Trotskyists oppose this as treachery because if the Bureaucracy was overthrown it would not be necessary to make those concessions to Capitalism by workers re-clawing billions of Yuan from Bureaucratic pillage. Trotsky attacked what he called “the friends of the USSR” who did not look at real contradictions in that country. If the Political revolution does not occur in a medium to long-term China will go through a similar 1991-Soviet-type crisis. Undoubtedly the Chinese Bureaucracy has leant from this but is subject to same objective laws.
Comment by Anthony Brain
Document 1 of my submission to Socialist Unity to debate on the Workers' States
Debate on Degenerated Workers’ State versus State Capitalism
There have been good points made why the Soviet Union; China; and Vietnam were/are workers’ states. Trotsky when he wrote History of the Russian Revolution attacked those who believed Russian Capitalism could develop abstractly rather than concretely analyse how Imperialism was semi-Colonising Russia. He developed his theory and strategy of Permanent Revolution from that analysis. In 1905 and History of the Russian Revolution Trotsky demonstrated how Imperialism stabilised their rule by working with semi-Feudal elements. Liberal Bourgeois elements betrayed the struggle for a republic against a Monarchy in 1905 because they feared the working class threatening their rule over different industries. The strategy of Permanent Revolution worked out by Trotsky was the working class would lead the middle class (Urban and rural Peasant)to lead a revolution which combined Bourgeois-Democratic tasks land to the Peasants by removing large-scale Landlords ownership; ending Imperialist ownership of major industries; combined with Socialist tasks of expropriating Capitalists.
Those who believe in State Capitalism are making the same methodological error that Trotsky referred in History of the Russian Revolution in not seeing that if Capitalism is fully restored productive forces built by a workers’ state would be set back by for decades. This would lead to tens of millions being made unemployed and their social gains being severely reduced or if not eliminated.
There is a completely un-dialectical attitude by one contributor to this site who does not distinguish between different stages that the Soviet/Russian Bureaucratised workers’ state has and is gone/going through. The Soviet/Russian Bureaucracy arose; reached its height; and has been in decay for 30 years. A majority of those on this site who agree with me that the Soviet Union was a workers’ state do not agree with me that Russia still remains a workers’ state because Capitalist restoration was halted mainly by those Bureaucrats whose privileges were threatened with that process.
Capitalist restoration has been threatened before but does similar defeats pro-Capitalist forces were defeated. In 1922 there were dangers that the Law of Value could overthrow the workers’ state with proposals that state money to different factories and industries is allocated on performance and the Monopoly of Foreign Trade be eliminated. Stalinism had not consolidated their power and pro-Capitalist forces could have won out. Lenin’s great achievement was salvaging the Monopoly of Foreign Trade. I am not suggesting Stalinism winning out was progressive, but with centrifugal forces a greater danger was present Capitalist restoration.
Tony Cliff was proven wrong on two occasions when he argued that the reason Capitalist private property was not restored within the Soviet Union because they could not destroy nationalised industries for a whole period. Mandel showed in “Marxist Economic Theory” that as German Imperialism conquered ex-Soviet areas Capitalist private property was restored. Since 1990 in Russia Capitalists have pushed to destroy nationalised property relations as quickly as possible.
Bureaucratic layers threatened by this process since Putin came to power in 2000 have halted that process by re-nationalising companies and pouring more resources into different nationalised industries and various social/public service.
Bourgeois analysts argue Russia invests in social spending whereas China is building its infrastructure. There have also been occupations of certain factories against closure demanding re-nationalisation. On Russia Today TV show there were figures two days ago showing that Russia’s economy has shrunk by 10%. If Russia is Capitalist it would be ruled by a law of Value leading to mass unemployment. This has not happened yet which is one indication that the Russian Bureaucracy rules Russia. The failure of Capitalist restoration in Russia and its salvaging as a workers’ state weakens Capitalism internationally and is an important factor in stopping American Imperialism attacking other workers’ states and semi-colonies. Finally the Russian Workers’ Staten can offer aid to forces fighting against Fascism in the Baltic countries and Eastern Europe.
Steve is breaking from a Trotskyist understanding of what we defend in the workers’ states. As American Trotskyist Jim Cannon argued we defend the nationalised property relations against Capitalist restoration but oppose Stalinism when it crushes the workers and oppressed nationalities. Trotskyists are for the revolutionary overthrow of Stalinism through a Political Revolution. Trotsky when he wrote “In Defence of Marxism” that Marxists defend workers’ states through our methods. The factory occupations in Russia and revolutionary upheavals in China preventing a steel plant being privatised. An upturn in world revolution is becoming more anti-Stalinist and anti-Capitalist. Despite the resurgence of Russia as a workers’ state the Bureaucracy is still in a medium-term process of decay. This is why Trotsky is on the rise.
Comment by Anthony Brain
There have been good points made why the Soviet Union; China; and Vietnam were/are workers’ states. Trotsky when he wrote History of the Russian Revolution attacked those who believed Russian Capitalism could develop abstractly rather than concretely analyse how Imperialism was semi-Colonising Russia. He developed his theory and strategy of Permanent Revolution from that analysis. In 1905 and History of the Russian Revolution Trotsky demonstrated how Imperialism stabilised their rule by working with semi-Feudal elements. Liberal Bourgeois elements betrayed the struggle for a republic against a Monarchy in 1905 because they feared the working class threatening their rule over different industries. The strategy of Permanent Revolution worked out by Trotsky was the working class would lead the middle class (Urban and rural Peasant)to lead a revolution which combined Bourgeois-Democratic tasks land to the Peasants by removing large-scale Landlords ownership; ending Imperialist ownership of major industries; combined with Socialist tasks of expropriating Capitalists.
Those who believe in State Capitalism are making the same methodological error that Trotsky referred in History of the Russian Revolution in not seeing that if Capitalism is fully restored productive forces built by a workers’ state would be set back by for decades. This would lead to tens of millions being made unemployed and their social gains being severely reduced or if not eliminated.
There is a completely un-dialectical attitude by one contributor to this site who does not distinguish between different stages that the Soviet/Russian Bureaucratised workers’ state has and is gone/going through. The Soviet/Russian Bureaucracy arose; reached its height; and has been in decay for 30 years. A majority of those on this site who agree with me that the Soviet Union was a workers’ state do not agree with me that Russia still remains a workers’ state because Capitalist restoration was halted mainly by those Bureaucrats whose privileges were threatened with that process.
Capitalist restoration has been threatened before but does similar defeats pro-Capitalist forces were defeated. In 1922 there were dangers that the Law of Value could overthrow the workers’ state with proposals that state money to different factories and industries is allocated on performance and the Monopoly of Foreign Trade be eliminated. Stalinism had not consolidated their power and pro-Capitalist forces could have won out. Lenin’s great achievement was salvaging the Monopoly of Foreign Trade. I am not suggesting Stalinism winning out was progressive, but with centrifugal forces a greater danger was present Capitalist restoration.
Tony Cliff was proven wrong on two occasions when he argued that the reason Capitalist private property was not restored within the Soviet Union because they could not destroy nationalised industries for a whole period. Mandel showed in “Marxist Economic Theory” that as German Imperialism conquered ex-Soviet areas Capitalist private property was restored. Since 1990 in Russia Capitalists have pushed to destroy nationalised property relations as quickly as possible.
Bureaucratic layers threatened by this process since Putin came to power in 2000 have halted that process by re-nationalising companies and pouring more resources into different nationalised industries and various social/public service.
Bourgeois analysts argue Russia invests in social spending whereas China is building its infrastructure. There have also been occupations of certain factories against closure demanding re-nationalisation. On Russia Today TV show there were figures two days ago showing that Russia’s economy has shrunk by 10%. If Russia is Capitalist it would be ruled by a law of Value leading to mass unemployment. This has not happened yet which is one indication that the Russian Bureaucracy rules Russia. The failure of Capitalist restoration in Russia and its salvaging as a workers’ state weakens Capitalism internationally and is an important factor in stopping American Imperialism attacking other workers’ states and semi-colonies. Finally the Russian Workers’ Staten can offer aid to forces fighting against Fascism in the Baltic countries and Eastern Europe.
Steve is breaking from a Trotskyist understanding of what we defend in the workers’ states. As American Trotskyist Jim Cannon argued we defend the nationalised property relations against Capitalist restoration but oppose Stalinism when it crushes the workers and oppressed nationalities. Trotskyists are for the revolutionary overthrow of Stalinism through a Political Revolution. Trotsky when he wrote “In Defence of Marxism” that Marxists defend workers’ states through our methods. The factory occupations in Russia and revolutionary upheavals in China preventing a steel plant being privatised. An upturn in world revolution is becoming more anti-Stalinist and anti-Capitalist. Despite the resurgence of Russia as a workers’ state the Bureaucracy is still in a medium-term process of decay. This is why Trotsky is on the rise.
Comment by Anthony Brain
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)