In Reply to the MWG-IGC Introduction The PDP and the MWG-IGC, recognizing certain commonality in their positions, have initiated formal discussions of certain points of disagreement. In this connection, the MWG-IGC prepared a list of four topics for discussion which address some crucial theoretical questions. Because of the language barrier, discussions of the contributions to Marxist theory of A.B. Razlatzky and the programme and tactics of the PDP which are based on them are especially difficult to conduct directly. In order to facilitate these discussions, it has been decided that some initial public exchanges in English will be conducted on the proletarism list. The translator of the works of A.B. Razlatzky into English, Perry Vodchik, has, with the approval of both sides, volunteered to present his understanding of the ideas of Razlatzky and the programme of the PDP in such exchanges. The hope is that this will make for a less cumbersome process. The PDP will itself participate in these discussions to the extent that time and translations services permit. The comrades of the IEC and subscribers to the proletarism list should thus bear firmly in mind that what follows are not the official positions of the PDP nor even the unofficial thoughts of its members or leaders, but merely the opinions of a single individual. That individual, however, considers himself to be a supporter of the theoretical contributions of Alexei Borisovitch Razlatzky and is an admirer of the practical achievements of the PDP, which are based on them. Thus, dropping the third person, I have tried to approach the task of replying to the questions of the IEC as follows. First, so far as I am able, I have tried to answer in the spirit of A.B. Razlatzky and of comrades Isaev and Kotel'nikov of the PDP. Second, I have attempted to offer the least polemical presentation of these matters that I can manage. I support the carrying out and the principled resolution of these discussions between the PDP and the MWG-IWC. However, as a partisan of the Marxist analysis of Razlatzky, as one who believes that it illuminates the path forward to communism for the world's proletarians, and indeed for all humanity, I have, in no way, tried to minimize the differences, which plainly exist, between the MWG-IGC world-view and these ideas. Finally, I should note that "What our Intelligentsia Does Not Want to Know" by A.B. Razlatzky, which is cited below, has been translated into English and will appear on the proletarism list and PDP home page as soon as some work on the footnotes is complete. Revolutionary Perestroika The comrades of the IEC pose the following questions; "Do you still believe that Gorbachev's perestroika was "revolutionary?" If so, do you also follow the logic of this position and conclude that Yeltsin's "reconstruction" was also "revolutionary?" Do you believe this even though illusions in bourgeois democracy were the sugar coating on the destruction of state planning, the axing of the monopoly on foreign trade, and the splitting up and De-industrialization of the Soviet Union? In short, do you tell the workers that the massive plunge in their living conditions was the result of the "revolutionary" victory of bourgeois democracy against feudalism?" Yes, Gorbachev's perestroika was revolutionary, in the same sense that the bourgeois revolutions of England and France were revolutionary and even progressive compared to the feudalism which preceded them. This does not, of course, mean that they were good for all the contending classes and strata which participated in them! Many small peasants, artisans, and workers in manufactories suffered terribly as a result of the European revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth century. The proletariat itself was born in conditions of appalling emiseration. And conditions for workers in the nineteenth century continued to be unbelievably harsh. So it would be fair to mirror the IEC's question and ask "Would it have been correct to tell the workers of nineteenth century England that their dreadful living conditions were the result of the revolutionary role the bourgeoisie had played in defeating old feudal system and that capitalist production relations were objectively progressive compared to those of feudalism?" Of course it would! Indeed Karl Marx did exactly that. This did not, however, make him an admirer of the bourgeoisie. So, jumping back to the 20th century, how was it that Gorbachev could find himself in the position of initiating the second, semi-bourgeois revolution in Russia just 68 years after the first, the revolution of February 1917? Why was this a revolution and not a counter-revolution? Quite simply, because the world's first proletarian dictatorship had already been overwhelmed by a silent counter-revolution. The historical process which led to this tragic result was first analyzed by A.B. Razlatzky in "The Second Communist Manifesto." In essence, the construction by the Bolsheviks of a unitary party-state-administration, gave rise, with the passage of time, to a new ruling class, the precise like of which had never been seen before in history. This new class, because it arose under the unprecedented condition of lacking private property in the means of production, had a number of unique features. On the one hand, it was unable, as a class, to formulate its class interests and demands, to constitute itself as class 'for itself,' this gave it a peculiar, petty-bourgeois character; and on the other hand, also because of the lack of private property in the means of production, the new class was not constrained by the requirements of capitalist competition and was thus able to downgrade relations with the working class to the level of the relations between a feudal lord and his serfs. This counter-revolution was nearly complete by the time Brezhnev came to power and the quasi-feudal system well entrenched; indeed, its possibilities for development were already almost exhausted. Thus Gorbachev's perestroika was the opening salvo in a long drawn out revolution against an historically obsolete, quasi-feudal social system, and, in this way, was progressive. As Razlatzky sets out quite clearly in "Who Must Answer?" and "What our Intelligentsia Does Not Want to Know" the terminal economic crisis of the USSR had become unavoidable as early as 1977. By that time the economy was already showing clear indications of negative accumulation, which, coupled with the peculiarly petty bourgeois character of the new ruling class and the Administration subordinated to it, made the general crisis unavoidable. Negative accumulation was the unambiguous indicator that the then current (quasi-feudal) production relations had become fetters on the further development of production; that the possibilities for development under the old system were exhausted. As early as the late 70s, the basis for the development of the new bourgeoisie was being laid. This took the form of increasing the independence of the directors of enterprises from the higher organs of state control. The unveiling of perestroika in 1985 at the April Plenum was the announcement that new bourgeoisie intended to carry their revolution against the old quasi-feudal system through to the end; it was the declaration of the 'New February;' it represented the first phase of the consolidation of the legal basis for the development of the new Russian bourgeoisie, the basis on which the more adventurous of the soviet ruling class could abandon the petty, bourgeois, quasi-feudal relations and substitute more nakedly bourgeois relations for them. This was the foundation for the 'primitive accumulation' (theft) which the new bourgeoisie engaged in and which continues, although now at a slower pace, even up to the present. In the events of 1991 therefore, the GKChP was an attempted putsch by the remaining representatives of the old quasi-feudal ruling class, which was exploited by the representative of the radical bourgeoisie, Yeltsin, to further complete the revolutionary process that Gorbachev had begun. The final phase of this revolution, which began at the April plenum, took place in 1993 when the Soviet were replaced with thoroughly bourgeois Dumas. These events completed the 'New February' revolution. The comrades of the IEC are mistaken, if they believe that by 1991 "the destruction of state planning, the axing of the monopoly on foreign trade and the splitting up and De-industrialization of the Soviet Union" were anything more than formal changes. Once the directors of enterprises had been given the right to freedom from the interference of higher state organs, all these pillars of socialism, which had long since become purely formal under the old system of feudal social relations, but which nonetheless had continued to shape and constrain the feudal ruling class somewhat, now became mere window dressing. The PDP is correct when it states that the revolutionary change began under Gorbachev and was largely brought to completion by Yeltsin in 1993, and that this initiated a period comparable to the interregnum between February and October in which the ruling class itself because of the bankruptcy of all its policies, sent society off "on a wide ranging scouting mission," and that this period continues up until today. Thus, in 1991, the GKChP (State Committee on the Extraordinary Situation) offered only a reactionary alternative to Yeltsin. Yeltsin did not lead the counter-revolution which overwhelmed the worlds first workers state, that had already happened long ago. That silent counter-revolution, which resulted in the creation of a new ruling class with all its peculiar feudal and petty bourgeois features, took place over an extended period and had already achieved much long before the death of Stalin. History demanded that this new quasi-feudal ruling class be overthrown when the possibilities for development within the production relations it established ran out. This occurred in the late seventies. Gorbachev's perestroika initiated the bourgeois revolution which overthrew the old ruling class. The events of 1991 and 1993 therefore signified only the completion of a process begun 9 years earlier. They also signified that Russia had started down the path from the New February to the New October. Economic and State Imperialism I believe that this discussion should be deferred a little. The IEC asks some important questions. However, to answer them properly requires significant additional study. Razlatzky's work "State Imperialism Should be Distinguished from Economic Imperialism" is a mere five paragraphs long; but they are very dense paragraphs. I have no information about what particular situation prompted him to write it; though the last two sentences point clearly to the relevance of his remarks to state imperialist acts of the USSR, the PRC and other countries of the socialist camp (recalling the Hoxhaist designation of the USSR as 'social-imperialist'). It is clear that this work must be understood in conjunction with "Turbulence in Social Development and the Stratification of the Superstructure." The key point advanced by Razlatzky on state imperialism is that it is a feudal survival which can exist in both capitalist and socialist societies. In 'Turbulence ...' Razlatzky examines the laws governing such survivals and retrogression to previous organizational forms in general. It is also obvious that a thorough investigation of related questions would involve a reassessment of Lenin's work "Imperialism, Highest Stage of Capitalism." I therefore recommend that both sides should spend some additional time considering these matters and that the comrades of the IEC study 'Turbulence ...' before taking it up in more detail. The Fourth International Perhaps the best that I can do here is to try to set the question in a different context. The IEC believe that "the last revolutionary international was the Fourth International." They also say "it is necessary that we have an overall agreement on gains and mistakes that were made in the past in order to march forward more confidently." With this latter comment I can, almost, agree wholeheartedly. But I would put things somewhat differently. I would ask the following question. What are the tasks facing revolutionary Marxists around the world today in order to advance the internationalization of the working class movement, and how can we learn from past experience in approaching them? Surely, there is much that we can all agree on! First, today, there is no revolutionary international. Second, the first, second, 'two-and-a-half'th, third and fourth internationals have all collapsed. Third, historical and technological development has changed the terrain of internationalism almost beyond recognition; when Karl Marx wrote his "Inaugural Address" to the First International in 1864, ten more years would have to pass before Marconi was born, and anyone in the USA with an interest in these developments would have had to wait nearly a month before news of them could reach north America, today, after I hit the 'send' button, not more than a few seconds will have elapsed before this document is in the mailboxes of comrades around the planet. The bourgeoisie is 'internationalized' to an extent undreamt of even in Lenin's time. The working class movement has yet to take full advantage of the technological possibilities which exist for it in internationalizing its resistance to the internationally coordinated attacks of capital. Thus, I believe we need to reexamine the history of all the internationals in order to understand what were their errors and what is required for the present and the future. In particular, the first international was an association of workers, the second and third were associations of parties. What form should the final international take? The Party and the State of the Working Class In attempting to come to grips with the IEC critique of Razlatzky's summation of the proletariat's experience of the first wave of proletarian revolution, I am struck by the differences in perception between comrades whose experience is of a country in which a proletarian revolution has never taken place and one where it has. Let us consider the IEC's summation of their position; "If a workers' government is to have accountability and credibility, it must be based in workers' democracy. If workers' democracy is to most effectively serve the working class, a Marxist party should democratically struggle for positions of leadership within (the) workers' state. By artificially counterposing the workers' government, to the party, and to the working class in general, you are erecting formal barriers that will most likely weaken working class rule instead of strengthening it." Now, unfortunately, this statement contains enough terminological imprecision that it is somewhat difficult to understand. However we can assume, from the context, that the situation being referred to is after a victorious proletarian revolution. So let us take the statement one sentence at a time. "If a workers' government is to have accountability and credibility, it must be based in workers' democracy." After the revolution, the most immediate political problem of the working class, its proletarian party and its new state, is the suppression of the counter-revolutionary activities of the old, defeated ruling class and its international allies. The most immediate economic problem is to seize the main levers of economic control and begin the transformation of the production relations in the society in order to liberate the productive potential, which was restricted under the old system, and thus provide greater satisfaction of the material requirements and interests of the working class. Both of these tasks present great difficulties. Both are urgent and yet both must be accomplished in such a way as to preserve and continuously extend the hegemony of the working class, not as a juridical fiction, but in life. Of course, the widest and deepest possible workers' democracy is an essential component of this, but history shows unequivocally that, alone, it is insufficient. For the Bolshevik revolution, Great October, was able to seize and hold state power, it was able to liquidate the Russian bourgeoisie as a class, was based on and able to further develop mass workers' democracy on a scale never before seen in history and was based on the most advanced revolutionary theory the world had ever known; yet 68 short years later it ended, unambiguously, when Gorbachev, faced with general economic crisis, in essence, quietly restored the fundamental capitalist right, the right of private property in the means of production, with perestroika. "If workers' democracy is to most effectively serve the working class, a Marxist party should democratically struggle for positions of leadership within (the) workers' state." This is quite puzzling. In the immediate aftermath of the proletarian revolution, because the old ruling class is in complete disarray, the proletarian party finds itself, willy-nilly, in the position of holding, or, at least, being able to concentrate, all power in its hands. It has been created and built by the working class and its allies as their revolutionary headquarters, and has led the class to smash the tottering edifice of power of the old ruling class. It therefore can not "democratically struggle for positions of leadership within (a) workers' state," which does not even exist. Rather the tasks that face it are to establish the new workers' state and an administration which can take up the required political and economic transformations. These were the tasks which faced the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution, and they were taken up with iron determination. "By artificially counterposing the workers' government, to the party, and to the working class in general, you are erecting formal barriers that will most likely weaken working class rule instead of strengthening it." No! There is nothing artificial about this 'counterposing.' It is life, the history of the world's first proletarian dictatorship and indeed of the whole of the 'socialist camp,' which poses the problems of the relations between the working class, its party, its state and administration in the attempt to build (the lower phase of) communism. It is only from the perspective of a proletarian dictatorship still lying in the future that these problems can seem artificial, and then, today, only if somehow the clear historical lessons of the proletariat's first experience of establishing its dictatorship are negated. Razlatzky's great work, "The Second Communist Manifesto," clarifies that role of the proletarian party must vary according to the phase of the struggle for communism. Before the revolution and after the stabilization of the proletarian state and its economic administration, the party must influence the state only through the mass political activity of the working class. In the revolution and its immediate aftermath, the party must concentrate power in its own hands just long enough to establish and stabilize the workers' state and economic administration. In order to ensure that party members obtain no privileges of any kind and to ensure that the state can develop no control of the proletarian party, those who choose to to become members of the state or administration must relinquish their status as voting party members. If the path of October is repeated, the results of October will be repeated. The fusion of the party with the state and the administration must inevitably result in a bourgeois degeneration with the peculiar feudal and petty bourgeois features which are the result of the formal lack of private property in the means of production. This is because membership in the upper echelons of the party-state-administration is the prerogative of a closed group which gives it a private and therefore bourgeois character. Because the party is the cornerstone of this integrated apparatus, this amounts to the stealthy high-jacking of the workers most powerful weapon in the class struggle by a group from which, inevitably, must arise a new ruling class. So it was after October, and so it will be again unless the lessons of October are learned. Perry Vodchik E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#42743890 http://proletarism.org/ http://stachkom.org/
