Re: Vietnamese countryside
At 06:16 PM 05/10/2000 -0400, you wrote: >"A collapse of the Soviet regime would lead inevitably to the collapse of >the planned economy, and thus to the abolition of state property. The bond >of compulsion between the trusts and the factories within them would fall >away. The more successful enterprises would succeed in coming out on the >road of independence. They might convert or they might find some themselves >into stock companies, other transitional form of property one, for >example, in which the workers should participate in the profits. The >collective farms would disintegrate at the same time, and far more easily. >The fall of the present bureaucratic dictatorship, if it were not replaced >by a new socialist power, would thus mean a return to capitalist relations >with a CATASTROPHIC DECLINE of industry and culture. " > >Leon Trotsky, "Revolution Betrayed" Trotsky was very smart. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Vietnamese countryside
>>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/10/00 03:54PM >>> 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. CB: I agree that Marx considered the rule of the proletariat as democratic. For in _The Manifesto_ , Engels and Marx refer to the democracy as the working class as the ruling class. But let us look a little more closely at what democracy is in Marxism.. Lenin's _The State and Revolution_ is the best precis of these issues. As Lenin points out, Marx proudly claimed that he had discovered the "dictatorship of the proletariat". He also assumed that socialism would still have a state, and that a state is an apparatus for oppression of one class by another. So, "democracy" in socialism doesn't mean that the bourgeosie who remain have the right to contest for state power, whether through votes or any of the other mechanisms set out in the American model. In other words , the democracy of socialism may encompass repression of some Bill of Rights type rights for some in order to retain a proletarian dictatorship. Furthermore, Lenin points out that in the Marxist conception DEMOCRACY itself is always a form of state, i.e. has an repressive apparatus. So, in communism (after socialism) there is no democracy either. In other words, democracy is not the highest form of organization or self-governance in the Marxist conception. What I say here doesn't contradict Lou and Jim's criticisms and comments about the failures of democracy and true proletarian class rule in the first efforts to build socialism. But in measuring those first socialisms against a Marxist standard of democracy, it is necessary to take into account the above which distinguishes the Marxist conception of democracy which is significantly different from some of the conceptions we might hold through our location in American culture and history. And so the first socialisms may come out a bit differently measured by the Marxist standard than it would seem without looking at the matter more closely as here. (The Paris Commune was flawed from Marx's standpoint too. He supported it despite the fact he knew it was a "folly of despair", and certainly it was not superiorly democratic in the senses that the Soviet Union et al are criticized here ). CB )) His model -- based in historical practice rather than in abstract slogans -- was the Paris Commune. Democracy was needed if progress toward abolishing both classes and the distinction between the state and society was not to be side-tracked into the creation of a new class of those wielding state power. The problem, as I see it, with the places in which "actually existing socialism" prevailed is that such a new class developed. (NB: that's not the same thing as saying that a capitalist class developed, though in Russia a lot of the old CPers used their state power to turn themselves into full-scale capitalists.) BTW, on the issue of democracy, it's not just a intra-national phenomenon. I think that the winning of national independence (by Vietnam and other countries dominated by imperialism) was a step forward in terms of democracy. (Sometimes, unfortunately, nationalist revolutions ran roughshod over ethnic minorities, as with the Nicaraguans vs. the Miskitus.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Vietnamese countryside
At 03:13 PM 5/10/00 -0400, you wrote: >Jim Devine: > >And we should trust a Communist Party with a monopoly of political power? > >Louis, didn't you have some troubles a few years ago with the self-styled > >Leninists of the SWP? doesn't that suggest some lessons about giving power > >over to a minority? > >I am not talking about democracy. I am talking about identifying the class >character of a state. The Hitlerite regime was undemocratic, but >capitalist. The Roosevelt regime fighting it was both democratic and >capitalist. 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. His model -- based in historical practice rather than in abstract slogans -- was the Paris Commune. Democracy was needed if progress toward abolishing both classes and the distinction between the state and society was not to be side-tracked into the creation of a new class of those wielding state power. The problem, as I see it, with the places in which "actually existing socialism" prevailed is that such a new class developed. (NB: that's not the same thing as saying that a capitalist class developed, though in Russia a lot of the old CPers used their state power to turn themselves into full-scale capitalists.) BTW, on the issue of democracy, it's not just a intra-national phenomenon. I think that the winning of national independence (by Vietnam and other countries dominated by imperialism) was a step forward in terms of democracy. (Sometimes, unfortunately, nationalist revolutions ran roughshod over ethnic minorities, as with the Nicaraguans vs. the Miskitus.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Vietnamese countryside
> Trotsky was very smart. > So why did Stalin outsmart him in the struggle for power?
Re: Re: Vietnamese countryside
Jim Devine: >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. Yes, that's what Marx believed, but he didn't anticipate Stalinism. Stalinism was undemocratic, but it defended socialized property relations up until 1990. 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. 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. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
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. Charles Brown replies: >CB: I agree that Marx considered the rule of the proletariat as >democratic. For in _The Manifesto_ , Engels and Marx refer to the >democracy as the working class as the ruling class. But let us look a >little more closely at what democracy is in Marxism.. Lenin's _The State >and Revolution_ is the best precis of these issues. I think that Hal Draper's KARL MARX'S THEORY OF REVOLUTION is the best on this (along with his little book on the "dictatorship of the proletariat), but of course it's not a precis. 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. >As Lenin points out, Marx proudly claimed that he had discovered the >"dictatorship of the proletariat". He also assumed that socialism would >still have a state, and that a state is an apparatus for oppression of one >class by another. So, "democracy" in socialism doesn't mean that the >bourgeosie who remain have the right to contest for state power, whether >through votes or any of the other mechanisms set out in the American >model. In other words , the democracy of socialism may encompass >repression of some Bill of Rights type rights for some in order to retain >a proletarian dictatorship. Right, but the issue between Louis and myself was not about this issue. 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? >Furthermore, Lenin points out that in the Marxist conception DEMOCRACY >itself is always a form of state, i.e. has an repressive apparatus. So, in >communism (after socialism) there is no democracy either. In other words, >democracy is not the highest form of organization or self-governance in >the Marxist conception. In the highest form, the distinction between the state and society goes away (as the state "withers away"). I can't see how that can't involve democracy (unless we're talking about total and utter domination of society by the state). >What I say here doesn't contradict Lou and Jim's criticisms and comments >about the failures of democracy and true proletarian class rule in the >first efforts to build socialism. But in measuring those first socialisms >against a Marxist standard of democracy, it is necessary to take into >account the above which distinguishes the Marxist conception of democracy >which is significantly different from some of the conceptions we might >hold through our location in American culture and history. I wasn't measuring modern socialisms against some "Marxist standard of democracy." Instead, I was asking who had power. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Vietnamese countryside
>>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/10/00 05:29PM >>> 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. Charles Brown replies: >CB: I agree that Marx considered the rule of the proletariat as >democratic. For in _The Manifesto_ , Engels and Marx refer to the >democracy as the working class as the ruling class. But let us look a >little more closely at what democracy is in Marxism.. Lenin's _The State >and Revolution_ is the best precis of these issues. I think that Hal Draper's KARL MARX'S THEORY OF REVOLUTION is the best on this (along with his little book on the "dictatorship of the proletariat), but of course it's not a precis. ___ CB: Somehow I was thinking you might say that :>). 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. __ 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 ? Is "freedom" from the principles that Lenin championed in the best interest of the proletariat, the overwhelming masses of the population ? >As Lenin points out, Marx proudly claimed that he had discovered the >"dictatorship of the proletariat". He also assumed that socialism would >still have a state, and that a state is an apparatus for oppression of one >class by another. So, "democracy" in socialism doesn't mean that the >bourgeosie who remain have the right to contest for state power, whether >through votes or any of the other mechanisms set out in the American >model. In other words , the democracy of socialism may encompass >repression of some Bill of Rights type rights for some in order to retain >a proletarian dictatorship. Right, but the issue between Louis and myself was not about this issue. 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? _ CB: Yes, but deciding the issue between Louis and you is impacted by these more general aspects of the Marxist conception of democracy. 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. 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. 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. So, the SU form was as close to the dictatorship in the interests of the proletariat as most actualizations of an idea for social forms have been in human history, with successes and failures in matching the idea. __ >Furthermore, Lenin points out that in the Marxist conception DEMOCRACY >itself is always a form of state, i.e. has an repressive apparatus. So, in >communism (after socialism) there is no democracy either. In other words, >democracy is not the highest form of organization or self-governance in >the Marxist conception. In the highest form, the distinction between the state and society goes away (as the state "withers away"). I can't see how that can't involve democracy (unless we're talking about total
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
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 work
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
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: Vietnamese countryside (fwd)
Regardless of how the USSR perceived Lenin's texts in 1977, _State and Revolution_ including _What is to be Done_ were written particulary _against_ anarchism, secterianism and vulgar economism so typical of Russian politics at the turn of the century. Mine >>> 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. )))
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: Re: Re: Vietnamese countryside (fwd)
At 09:40 PM 5/10/00 -0400, you wrote: >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. I'm sorry, but I don't have the time, energy, or resources to give you the quotes at this time. I'll just paraphrase one thing that Marx and Engels said in THE GERMAN IDEOLOGY. They said that if a socialist revolution happens in conditions of poverty, all it does is socialize poverty, so the old sh*t comes back. The "old sh*t" includes class society, a coercive and undemocratic state, etc. Obviously, that's too simple, abstract, since we need concrete analysis of concrete conditions. (The GERMAN IDEOLOGY is about basic principles, not concrete analysis.) But it does indicate the serious problems that socialism faces in a poor country. It should be noted also that Marx's political writings (documented extremely completely by Hal Draper) indicate that Marx was an anti-statist, though not an anarchist. He was quite familiar with state despotism, in the form of the Prussian monarchy, which was only partly capitalist at the time. He was not an anarchist, though, because he thought that immediate abolition of the state wouldn't work in practice. First, workers' political and economic power would have to be consolidated... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
