On tactics of revolution
>2. Today, tactics of permanent revolution lost its ground. How do means (What >accounts for the) Russian revolution and its collapse? Lessons from Russian >revolution results from analyzing the degeneration of proletariat dictatorship. Various >factors existed, in today, we must be clear to abolish commodity and money due to
>dictatorship of proletariat. <
Reply
The words "analyzing the degeneration of proletariat dictatorship" is pregnant with meaning and can only be unraveled once a Marxist - specifically Leninist, approach to party, class, masses and administrative system regulating public property relations in industry is made.
Lenin's presentation of the relationship between leaders, masses and classes is summarized as a historical configuration in "Left Wing Communism An Infantile Disorder." I shall not repeat this formulation. I am somewhat familiar with the writings of J. V. Stalin because I read them and once owned his 13 Volume Collection. Perhaps twenty years ago I donated my collection to the comrades in the historic areas of slavery in the South of America - biggest mistake I have made in life. What can I say, being "South" with carpetbag and all and inescapably trapped in the logic of American history.
We have a fundamental unity on a general line of march - approach, to this specific stage in the decay of capital.
I agree with the specific delineation you make between the conception of "permanent revolution" and "uninterrupted revolution." The question of capitalist development in a country that did not know and experience concrete feudal relations are different or rather manifests Marxism of a different hue, due to a particular national development. National development without feudal economic relations and "national" consolidation based on the transition from manufacture to industry is unique.
The "degeneration of proletariat dictatorship" should be presented as the "decay of the party and the subsequent overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat."
You correctly point out the role of the peasantry as it evolves from feudal economic structures and eloquently speak of the exploitation of the peasantry when you state:
>Thus to exploit capital, it could achieve by proletariat, their conscious will and >political power, but these unconscious collective action would be unable by human >will, or in other word, political will. (Problem of translation in above two sentences.) >If so, it become clear that NEP was a historical inevitability and the meaning of >NEP under proletariat is a "Proletarian Cultural Revolution." NEP (New Economic >Program) was to overcome economical deadlock, which resulted from war >communism and exploited farmers. Thus NEP was a program to save the political >revolution by reviving the commodity form of production or the social product. >Lenin's government saw and understood NEP as a tactic of retreat from revolution. >So if economical revival was achieved, to abolish money is premise. Today, NEP >was not proved retreat from revolution rather the tactics inevitable to lead social >revolution avoiding to intervene farmers. L!
ater Lenin knew it, but already he lost >powers. <"
Well, here is the point of difference. In a country (or countries) that did not experience concrete feudal economic relations, what is called the exploitation of the peasantry as such is called the "historic mechanization of agriculture." There was a class of slaves producing for the world market and their emancipation - May 1865, resulted in a spontaneous movement to parcel out the land of the large landowners who were slaveholders or the slaveholding class.
"He brought the farm" is a historic popular saying in American history, indicating property and class relationships. One becomes a property holder at the point of death because ones "insurance money" can pay the mortgage - capitalist property relations pure and simple. The point is that peasants as such did not exist in America.
Peasants are talked about because they existed as a class in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia. No peasants in America but peasants existed in Japan and most countries on earth. No feudal economic relations existed in the former American colonies. None - Nada - Nathan - nuthing from nuthing!
I shall not "nit-pick " - (become petty and seek very small points of difference). The basis for the overthrow of Soviet power was not a historic assertion ushering forth from the means of production, but rather decay in the subjective arena or rather the party; the infiltration of the bourgeoisie within the party as politics and this set the basis for the overthrow of Soviet Power. The corruption and decay in the administrative branches of the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a historically inevitable process but rather a historic consequence of "something else." This "something else" must be sought out and understood.
I believe that
