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+Filing&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000004) _______________________________________________ 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
