Re: Re: Re: Vietnamese countryside
I wrote: BTW, a friend (an expert on Soviet agriculture and politics) who spent a year in the USSR in 1977 or so reported that Soviet academics were expected to quote from Lenin in all articles (including articles on soil chemistry). But they weren't supposed to quote from THE STATE AND REVOLUTION, seemingly because it was seen as anarchistic. quoth Charles Brown: CB: Do you think the "freedom" of U.S. academics from this disciplined Leninism results in better or worse intellectual products as compared with the SU ? I don't think this kind of comparison (the quality of intellectual products) can be made. Just as in the US, the quality of orthodox academics rose as the topic that they were dealing with became more distant from questioning the official ideology. Is "freedom" from the principles that Lenin championed in the best interest of the proletariat, the overwhelming masses of the population ? no. The point was that the quotations from Lenin were simply window-dressing. The academics would throw in a quote from Vlad, then ignore it and discuss whatever they were studying. The initial quote didn't hurt the quality of their work. More directly to your point, which has to do with the republican principle vs. direct democracy, Marx and Engels clearly advocated a republican form of government for socialism, not direct democracy ( New England town meeting) of the tens of millions. So, the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Marxist conception IS some minority ruling as the representatives of the overwhelming majority as in all republics. Engels and Marx also advocated a centralized instead of a federal ( as in the U.S.) form for the national government. I wasn't talking about direct democracy, which seems like nothing but a red herring. Strictly speaking, the Commune model that Marx endorsed wasn't "representative democracy." Rather, it was delegatory democracy, since the delegates could easily be recalled. Representatives can't be recalled with ease (it's like impeaching the president in most cases). Also, the delegate's pay were restricted from rising much above that of the average worker. Because of recall and the pay restriction, it's not the same as rule by a minority. (Also, Marx endorsed the end of the separation between the executive and the legislative branches.) Of course, recall and pay restrictions work differently (i.e., poorly) under capitalism. Here in California, recall is relatively easy, so that the organized right wing and the moneyed interests use it (just as they use the initiative system). If we had pay restrictions, that would mean that most of the time, only the independently wealthy could afford to stand for office. (Every once and awhile, some Republican advocates lowering representatives' pay, in order to produce this result.) Similarly, ending the separation between the executive and legislative branches is no big improvement under capitalism, as seen in the many cases of parliamentary democracy in Europe and elsewhere. Again, Commune-type democracy would work better with socialism in place. Then to be historically concrete and realistic, the imperialist imposition of a permanent state of war or threat of war against the SU necessitated a militarization of the form of rule. All democracies in real history have disgarded many democratic forms in conditions of war siege. For example, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the U.S. Civil War. Right. The problem is that the longer the external attacks (and threats) persist, the more entrenched the bureaucratic rulers become. It starts out as necessity, but eventually the officials start arguing the virtue of that necessity. The means become ends in themselves. (I've read old Soviet propaganda about the benefits of a one-party system (and it wasn't simply a matter of defending the country) and the fun little fairy tale about how the other political parties voluntarily disbanded during the 1920s.) If the US Civil War had lasted for a long time, the Lincoln-era restrictions on civil liberties would have become totally entrenched, just as the Cold War-era restrictions (HUAC, the FBI, COINTELPRO, etc.) became entrenched until people (including lawyers) fought hard and long against them. As I said, you and Lou are correct in noting that the SU in the period of Stalin also violated Marxist principles of democracy. Khrushchev details these in the 20th Congress report. But the Soviet state in the period of Stalin also did many things that were not only in the name of the proletariat, but in the best interests of the proletariat. This fact is significantly absent from your measure of the success of proletarian democracy in the SU at that time. Stalinist illegal violence was more against party members than the proletarian masses. not against the kulaks? So, the SU form was as close to the dictatorship in the interests of the proletariat as most
Re: Re: Re: Vietnamese countryside
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/11/00 12:15PM I wrote: BTW, a friend (an expert on Soviet agriculture and politics) who spent a year in the USSR in 1977 or so reported that Soviet academics were expected to quote from Lenin in all articles (including articles on soil chemistry). But they weren't supposed to quote from THE STATE AND REVOLUTION, seemingly because it was seen as anarchistic. quoth Charles Brown: CB: Do you think the "freedom" of U.S. academics from this disciplined Leninism results in better or worse intellectual products as compared with the SU ? I don't think this kind of comparison (the quality of intellectual products) can be made. ))) CB: What type of issue were you getting at with your "BTW" ? Sounds like you are raising an issue of intellectual freedom in the SU. ))) Just as in the US, the quality of orthodox academics rose as the topic that they were dealing with became more distant from questioning the official ideology. ___ CB: I don't know. The official ideology in the SU ( historical materialism) was of high intellectual quality , compared with that in the US. ___ Is "freedom" from the principles that Lenin championed in the best interest of the proletariat, the overwhelming masses of the population ? no. The point was that the quotations from Lenin were simply window-dressing. The academics would throw in a quote from Vlad, then ignore it and discuss whatever they were studying. The initial quote didn't hurt the quality of their work. __ CB: I have a lot of books from the Soviet Union for which this is not true. The quotes of Lenin are very relevant to what is being discussed. For example , I had one by Comrade Zivs , an attorney whom I met, for which your generalization is inaccurate. Perhaps, not everybody was in the same situation as your aquaintence said. __ More directly to your point, which has to do with the republican principle vs. direct democracy, Marx and Engels clearly advocated a republican form of government for socialism, not direct democracy ( New England town meeting) of the tens of millions. So, the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Marxist conception IS some minority ruling as the representatives of the overwhelming majority as in all republics. Engels and Marx also advocated a centralized instead of a federal ( as in the U.S.) form for the national government. I wasn't talking about direct democracy, which seems like nothing but a red herring. CB: May seem like one , but is not. You didn't use the term "direct democracy", but the concept is important for analyzing the subject you and Lou were discussing. All of the following questions you mention "Rather, it was about who was running the state: was it the proletariat or some small minority of CP members? so was it a dictatorship _by_ the proletariat or a dictatorship _in the name of_ the proletariat? or a dictatorship _over_ the proletariat? or the Stalinist dictatorship _exploiting_ the proletariat?" cannot be addressed without the concept of direct democracy. A "dictatorship by (of) the proletariat " has no sensible meaning without reference to "direct democracy." To ask was it the proletariat "running" the state, must mean some reference to direct democracy, if just to clarify the meaning of republic or representative government. "The" proletariat is a mass. A mass "running" the state is some type of direct democracy. Strictly speaking, the Commune model that Marx endorsed wasn't "representative democracy." Rather, it was delegatory democracy, since the delegates could easily be recalled. __ CB: All elected officials of the City of Detroit can be recalled too. All republican forms are "delegatory" forms. I wouldn't quite say Marx endorsed the Commune in the sense of a comprehensive theoretical model for a socialist state. It was more a specific experiment , which was valuable because it was an "actually existing" effort, and a source of one or two specific modifications of Engels and Marx's outline in _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_. Specifically, they said the proletariat could not just pick up the bourgeois state apparatus whole, but that it would have to be broken up. Also, this was a negative lesson from the Commune, a lesson from an error of the Commune. ___ __ Representatives can't be recalled with ease (it's like impeaching the president in most cases). __ CB: "with ease" has to be spelled out. Legally, all you have to do is gather the signatures and win the vote in Detroit. Practically, you are fighting city hall. There was just a recall petition circulated against the Mayor last year. The City Clerk suspiciously invalidated a huge number of signatures. __ Also, the delegate's pay were restricted from rising much above that of the average worker. Because of recall and
Re: Re: Re: Vietnamese countryside (fwd)
Jim Devine wrote:
I don't think the issue of democracy should be separated from the class
nature of the state. At least as I understand Marx, he believed that the
proletariat would be a different kind of ruling class than previous ruling
classes, that its rule would have to be democratic.
Louis Proyect responds:
Yes, that's what Marx believed, but he didn't anticipate Stalinism.
Jim Devine responds:
Hal Draper has a lot of quotes in his KARL MARX'S THEORY OF REVOLUTION
which he interprets as anticipating Stalinism. But I don't want to get
into
quote-mongering.
Bad example! why should we take Hal Draper seriously then if he
misinterprets Marx? Marx could not have anticipated Stalinism, Stalin
misread Marx in some ways. The argument that Marx anticipated Stalinism is
completely a historical statement, made out of context, which pays
attention to "ideas" rather than to circumstances of Stalin's Russia.
Projecting Marx onto Stalin or vice versa is an idealist reading of
history. Ideas should be judged vis a vis circumstances, not circumstances
vis a vis ideas, especially in Marxian praxis (Reread Gramsci)!
Also needed is proletarian power.
What a charming invitation! If you really trusted proleterian power,
you would try to understand, or at least appreciate, the circumstances
and social forces of Vietnamese revolution instead of saying that it
was not a revolution in Marxist sense. This way of thinking reminds me of
bourgeois Kautsky who did not expect a revolution in Russia because Russia
was economically "backward", or the circumstances were not yet ready.
("so let's postpone "mass democracy" folks! because the "masses" are still
"immature" kind of ELITIST way of thinking)
The people who do *not* want revolutions can not IMAGINE revolutions..
Mine Doyran
Phd Student
Political Science
SUNY/Albany
Re: Re: Re: Re: Vietnamese countryside (fwd)
I did *not* misunderstand what you wrote. You just threw ideas without
explaining them. that is why, your post is open to misinterpretation. I
would like to see the quotes to know how Marx "anticipates"
Stalinism...as a person partially trained in economic history, it seems
to me a very "ahistorical" thing to project "ideas" abstractly onto
entirely different circumstances and social forces, and then judge
circumstances based on ideas, while the opposite should be the case. that
was the concern.
merci,
Mine
Jim Devine responds:
Hal Draper has a lot of quotes in his KARL MARX'S THEORY OF REVOLUTION
which he interprets as anticipating Stalinism. But I don't want to get
into
quote-mongering.
Bad example! why should we take Hal Draper seriously then if he
misinterprets Marx? Marx could not have anticipated Stalinism, Stalin
I continued:
... The argument that Marx anticipated Stalinism is completely a
historical statement, made out of context, which pays attention to "ideas"
rather than to circumstances of Stalin's Russia. Projecting Marx onto
Stalin or vice versa is an idealist reading of
history. Ideas should be judged vis a vis circumstances, not circumstances
vis a vis ideas, especially in Marxian praxis (Reread Gramsci)!
I did NOT blame Marx for Stalin. You misread what I wrote. Rather, I was
saying that Marx had some understanding of the problem of Stalinism.
clip
Also needed is proletarian power.
What a charming invitation! If you really trusted proleterian power, you
would try to understand, or at least appreciate, the circumstances and
social forces of Vietnamese revolution instead of saying that it was not a
revolution in Marxist sense.
this simply repeats something that Louis and I have already discussed and
I
have no intention to repeat that discussion. He and I attach different
meanings to the word "proletarian."
clip
This way of thinking reminds me of bourgeois Kautsky who did not expect
a
revolution in Russia because Russia was economically "backward", or the
circumstances were not yet ready. ("so let's postpone "mass democracy"
folks! because the "masses" are still "immature" kind of ELITIST way of
thinking)
ditto: Louis and I had a discussion about this. You misunderstand what I
wrote. I'm in favor of "mass democracy" (except if that's simply a slogan
which has some other meaning).
clip
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Mine Doyran
Political Science
Phd student
SUNY/Albany
Re: Re: Re: Re: Vietnamese countryside (fwd)
... The argument that Marx anticipated Stalinism is completely a
historical statement, made out of context, which pays attention to "ideas"
rather than to circumstances of Stalin's Russia. Projecting Marx onto
Stalin or vice versa is an idealist reading of
history. Ideas should be judged vis a vis circumstances, not circumstances
vis a vis ideas, especially in Marxian praxis (Reread Gramsci)!
I did NOT blame Marx for Stalin. You misread what I wrote. Rather, I was
saying that Marx had some understanding of the problem of Stalinism.
Also needed is proletarian power.
What a charming invitation! If you really trusted proleterian power, you
would try to understand, or at least appreciate, the circumstances and
social forces of Vietnamese revolution instead of saying that it was not a
revolution in Marxist sense.
this simply repeats something that Louis and I have already discussed and I
have no intention to repeat that discussion. He and I attach different
meanings to the word "proletarian."
This way of thinking reminds me of bourgeois Kautsky who did not expect a
revolution in Russia because Russia was economically "backward", or the
circumstances were not yet ready. ("so let's postpone "mass democracy"
folks! because the "masses" are still "immature" kind of ELITIST way of
thinking)
ditto: Louis and I had a discussion about this. You misunderstand what I
wrote. I'm in favor of "mass democracy" (except if that's simply a slogan
which has some other meaning).
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Vietnamese countryside
I wrote: I don't think the issue of democracy should be separated from the class nature of the state. At least as I understand Marx, he believed that the proletariat would be a different kind of ruling class than previous ruling classes, that its rule would have to be democratic. Louis Proyect responds: Yes, that's what Marx believed, but he didn't anticipate Stalinism. Hal Draper has a lot of quotes in his KARL MARX'S THEORY OF REVOLUTION which he interprets as anticipating Stalinism. But I don't want to get into quote-mongering. Stalinism was undemocratic, but it defended socialized property relations up until 1990. As I suggest to Chris Buford in a recent message, state property _per se_ is not what socialists (including Marx) want. After all, ancient Egypt had state property in almost all means of production. State property is necessary, but not sufficient. Also needed is proletarian power. Worse, the experience with Stalin and his gray bureaucratic successors (can anyone name them from memory?) disorganized the working class and encouraged deep cynicism. (Strictly speaking, the CPSU kept them disorganized, since such events as the Russian Civil War after 1917 encouraged disorganization, as Isaac Deutscher shows.) The disorganization and cynicism of the working class meant that when the old USSR fell apart, there was little chance to stop the power grab by the rising oligarchy of gangsters and their US/IMF sponsors. (BTW, the Russian workers' cynicism produced some good jokes: has anyone seen the BIG RED JOKE BOOK?) The question of why it shifted to supporting capitalism is the topic of Kotz-Weir's book which I have to get to at some point. It looks like a useful book and David Kotz is a smart guy. Last night there was a dreadful PBS documentary on Putin, which totally omitted the role of the United States in causing one of the most catastrophic economic collapses in modern history. is that the FRONTLINE report? I've heard bits and pieces of a US National Public Radio series which is supposed to be in conjunction with FRONTLINE. The first one talked about the US contributions to that collapse. It was pretty mild, centering on "mistakes that were made." In fact, I haven't heard the word "mistakes" used more since the time I talked to a Stalinist who was defending his Master's blood-purges. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
