True, after the collaps of the USSR Russia has gone from bad to worse. But what
is so unusual about a system getting into a crisis without necessarily changing
it's fundamental characteristics? There are lots of other countries in the
world, which I'm sure you wouldn't have any problems of regarding as capitalist
and which have gone through deep crisis on various fronts.Though this can't of
course be proved empirically I think that the Stalinist statecapitalist
societies would have gone into fatal crisis even if they had stayed
statecapitalist. The reason why the ruling class (or at least the crucial layers
of it) chose to turn to old private capitalism was that they knew (undoubtedly
better than those who still defend their state as sociaslist or as deformed
'workers states') that they were in a deadly crisis, and therefore they chose
to jump from the pan into what turned out to be the fire (or rather they let the
toiling masses of their countries do so). They probably thaught that the
imperialist countries would help them to become as rich as they are. But this is
only a sign of how far these sirs and ladies were apart from Marxism. Anyway we
witness a constant assault in the imperialist countries themselves on the so
called wellfare-state and a return to form of capitalist exploitation known from
very early times. The collapse of statecapitalism is only the collapse of the
weakest link of the world capitalist system (after much of the so called Third
world has for some decades already seen living standards steadily declining - in
particular subsaharan Africa). The problem is that the concept of the weak link
being associated with Lenin's theory of revolution this time the outcome is not
really revolutionary at all. This I think is mainly due to the destruction of
the historical links between the working class and Marxism by the experience of
Stalinism. This is not astonishing. Lenin already said that it was only the
'Communists' who would be able to destroy communism. To still propagate the idea
that the Stalinist countries had anything to do with sociaslism is to keep the
working class internationally as far from Marxism as possible. This does of
course not mean that Marxists shouldn't defend various rights the old rulers
were for one reason or another forced to concede to the toiling masses. An
example is that there is a movemenr in Russia led by the trade union of Oleg
Sheyn to defend the old labour law against the threatening new one
which deprives workers of almost all rights.
A. Holberg
Macdonald Stainsby schrieb:
>
> >
> > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/06/00 04:04PM >>>
> > Russia's Population To Decline
> > =====================
> > by VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
> > Associated Press Writer
> >
> > MOSCOW (AP) -- The steady decline of Russia's population, unprecedented
> > for an industrialized nation not at war, is likely to last for decades
> > to come, the head of the government statistics agency said Tuesday.
> > ''The population decline, which started in 1992, will continue for many
> > years, maybe decades, maybe even a half-century,'' Vladimir Sokolin, the
> > head of Russia's State Statistics Committee, said at a news conference.
> >
> > ((((((((((((
> >
> > CB: Gee, don't they need to think about bringing back socialism before
> going down hill
> for fifty years ?
> >
> > ((((((((
>
> Actually your off-the-cuff comment, with which I of course agree, reminds me
> (yet again)
> of my basic pat peeve. While all Marxists would ultimately agree that
> socialism is the
> only final answer that we can lean back on to help Russia's population, many
> of us would
> like to argue whether or not the old system was "socialist". Suffice to say
> that these
> kinds of empirical facts demonstrate the only really needed point: That the
> old USSR
> signified something so vastly different from the basic capitalist world
> system as to
> prove it was not "capitalist" in the modern sense, nor was it a part of the
> Imperial
> world structure. With that in mind, we should spend less time fighting over
> labels for
> it, and point at these obvious facts.
>
> The USSR is gone and with that economic structure, we have what appears to be
> a suicide
> by an entire people. That is sufficient cause to regret her loss. Marxists do
> not make a
> distinction between a person who is killed by a bullet over a lack of food
> when the food
> does indeed exist. This is fundamental. When we return to this fundamental,
> we see
> immediately the destruction wraught on these people. Moreover, we notice that
> the
> decline in life standards is stark enough to be worthwhile of defending.
> While Marxists
> cheer the fall of Suharto and White-0Apartheid South Africa on the basis that
> it is an
> improvement in living for the citizenry ther, they certainly should weep with
> the exact
> same motives for the fall of the USSR. Call it the "U.nusually S.elf-
> S.ustaining
> R.epublic" if it makes you feel better, but to overlook the destructive
> impact of its
> collapse is a mockery of the Marxist approach.
>
> Macdonald
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leninist-International mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
