re:Soviet objectives
At 06:17 PM 4/8/98 -0500, Shane Mage wrote: >I disagree profoundly with this personification of "the state" and "the >system." Motives and objectives can exist only as the motives and >objectives of *people*, the real agents of social life. When Hegel spoke >of the "ruse of reason," and Marx recast this concept in terms of >historical objectivity (as in the quotation below) they were referring to >the fact that historical outcomes frequently do not correspond at all to >the motives of their agents, but that these motives were historically >necessary factors in the process that led to the *undesired* outcome. >Moreover, the "leaders" are not the only, or indeed the most important, >agents. The masses have their own motives and objectives, which should >always hold pride of place. In no sense was the true objective of the >Soviets' revolution its overthrow by Stalinist counterrevolution. I think our disagreement is over semantics. I would NOT argue that the goal of the revolution, as understood by the masses (I've heard at least one first-hand account of it from my grandpa who was a worker in St. Petersburg at that time), was building an empire. I think, just as you do, that the real goal, for those people, was to build socialism. On the other hand, utopias - no matter how profound -- can be built only if the material conditions permit it -- and if we were to learn only one thing from Marx - that would be that thing. The backwardness of Russia's development made it virtually impossible to implement the socialist ideal, and the country's development followed the path of capitalist exploitation of workers and competition on global markets hidden under the offical ideology. In that light, I shopuld perhaps re-phrase my original question: "whate were the real (=realistically attainable) objectives of the social-economic development sparket by the Revolution in Russia? As Barringtom Moore aptly observed, those who benefit from a revolution are usually not the same folks who carried it out. Regards, WS
re:Soviet objectives
Wojtek writes: >At 05:15 PM 4/8/98 -0500, you wrote: >>Ricardo quotes Wojtek as follows: >> >>>WS: >>> That depends on how one views the REAL objective of the October >Revolution. If that REAL objective was the establishment of a socialist society >worthy its name, then I fully concur with Ricardo - the x-USSR was a gigantic failure. If, on the other hand, that REAL objective was catching up with the advanced capitalist powers of Western Europe and Japan, ideological proclamations notwithstanding -- a view I tend to espouse -- then the Stalinist policies should be viewed as a moderate (because of the considerable human cost) success. >> >>What makes something a "REAL objective"? Only, I submit, the explicit >>formulation >>of that objective by the agents of historical action, NOT the "ruse of >reason." > > >Only if we assume that the motives of the leaders = motives of the >state/system. I disagree profoundly with this personification of "the state" and "the system." Motives and objectives can exist only as the motives and objectives of *people*, the real agents of social life. When Hegel spoke of the "ruse of reason," and Marx recast this concept in terms of historical objectivity (as in the quotation below) they were referring to the fact that historical outcomes frequently do not correspond at all to the motives of their agents, but that these motives were historically necessary factors in the process that led to the *undesired* outcome. Moreover, the "leaders" are not the only, or indeed the most important, agents. The masses have their own motives and objectives, which should always hold pride of place. In no sense was the true objective of the Soviets' revolution its overthrow by Stalinist counterrevolution. Shane Mage "Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64 P.S. I apolpogize for my inadvertent misspelling of Guchkov as "Gorchkov." SM > Gerschenkron, working to re-formulate the marxist conceptss >(but staying, IMHO, totally within the Marxist concpetual framework) views >those objectives as being determined by (i) the organization of production >(esp. the banking system and industrial labor), and (ii) organizational >mimicry (emulating successful models developed elsewhere). Fram that >standpoint, it matters little waht the glorious leaders say about their >motives (cf. Marx & Engels, _The German Ideology_ , New York: International >Publishers, 1995 , p. 46-47 "The fact is, therefore, that definite >individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into these >definite social and political relations. Empirical observation must in >each separate instance bring out empirically, and wihtout any mystification >and speculation, the connection of the social and political structure with >production. The social structure and the State are continually evolving >out of the life-process of definite individuals, but of individuals, not as >they may appear in their own or other people's imgaination, but as they >_really_ [emphasis original] are; ie. as they operate, produce materially, >and hence as they work under definite material limits, presuppositions and >conditions >indpendent of their will.) > >>From that point of view, the "real" motives can be inferred as (i) a desire >to catch up with the Germans and the Japanese who defeated Russia in 1905 >and 1917 respectively, and (ii) implementation of a 'succesful' model of >industrialization i.e. the Bismarckian corporatist welfare state cum >cartels with a slight modification, the state rather than banks controlling >the cartels (as the Russians banks were literally a joke - "nye propadnyet, >no nye powoocheesh" or "[your money] won't get lost, but you won't get it >back either." > >Regards > >WS
re:Soviet objectives
At 05:15 PM 4/8/98 -0500, you wrote: >Ricardo quotes Wojtek as follows: > >>WS: >> >>> That depends on how one views the REAL objective of the October Revolution. >>> If that REAL objective was the establishment of a socialist society worthy >>> its name, then I fully concur with Ricardo - the x-USSR was a gigantic >>> failure. >>> >>> If, on the other hand, that REAL objective was catching up with the >>> advanced capitalist powers of Western Europe and Japan, ideological >>> proclamations notwithstanding -- a view I tend to espouse -- then the >>> Stalinist policies should be viewed as a moderate (because of the >>> considerable human cost) success. > >What makes something a "REAL objective"? Only, I submit, the explicit >formulation >of that objective by the agents of historical action, NOT the "ruse of reason." Only if we assume that the motives of the leaders = motives of the state/system. Gerschenkron, working to re-formulate the marxist conceptss (but staying, IMHO, totally within the Marxist concpetual framework) views those objectives as being determined by (i) the organization of production (esp. the banking system and industrial labor), and (ii) organizational mimicry (emulating successful models developed elsewhere). Fram that standpoint, it matters little waht the glorious leaders say about their motives (cf. Marx & Engels, _The German Ideology_ , New York: International Publishers, 1995 , p. 46-47 "The fact is, therefore, that definite individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into these definite social and political relations. Empirical observation must in each separate instance bring out empirically, and wihtout any mystification and speculation, the connection of the social and political structure with production. The social structure and the State are continually evolving out of the life-process of definite individuals, but of individuals, not as they may appear in their own or other people's imgaination, but as they _really_ [emphasis original] are; ie. as they operate, produce materially, and hence as they work under definite material limits, presuppositions and conditions indpendent of their will.) >From that point of view, the "real" motives can be inferred as (i) a desire to catch up with the Germans and the Japanese who defeated Russia in 1905 and 1917 respectively, and (ii) implementation of a 'succesful' model of industrialization i.e. the Bismarckian corporatist welfare state cum cartels with a slight modification, the state rather than banks controlling the cartels (as the Russians banks were literally a joke - "nye propadnyet, no nye powoocheesh" or "[your money] won't get lost, but you won't get it back either." Regards WS
re:Soviet objectives
Ricardo quotes Wojtek as follows: >WS: > >> That depends on how one views the REAL objective of the October Revolution. >> If that REAL objective was the establishment of a socialist society worthy >> its name, then I fully concur with Ricardo - the x-USSR was a gigantic >> failure. >> >> If, on the other hand, that REAL objective was catching up with the >> advanced capitalist powers of Western Europe and Japan, ideological >> proclamations notwithstanding -- a view I tend to espouse -- then the >> Stalinist policies should be viewed as a moderate (because of the >> considerable human cost) success. What makes something a "REAL objective"? Only, I submit, the explicit formulation of that objective by the agents of historical action, NOT the "ruse of reason." And who, in the Russian Empire of 1917 considered the attainment of parity with the advanced capitalist countries, a nationalistic fetish, his objective? Gorchkov and Miliukov, presumably. But what Bolshevik (indeed, what Menshevik)? None explicitly. And who secretly? Only an undiscovered Okhranik who had successfully penetrated the Bolshevik leadership. From the standard of such a criminal, "the Stalinist policies should be viewed," NOT "as a moderate" but asan unqualified "success." Shane Mage "Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64
re:Soviet objectives
> Date sent: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 15:14:59 -0400 > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Wojtek Sokolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: re:Soviet objectives > Well, who knows what really was on their minds -- we can forever speculate > on that. As I recall (I think from Braverman), Lenin was also mesmerized > by the works of Frederic Winslow Taylor - the quintessential capitalist. > So who knows which work had a greater influence on his thinking? The Soviet bureaucracy turned highly cynical about socialist ideals only later in the 60s and 70s - to that extent I can agree with some of what you say. But anyone who knows something about Lenin knows that he was deeply, totally, consciously, intentionally committed to socialist ideals. Lenin was never "mesmerized" by anyone except Marx. His attraction to Taylor was in line with Engels's earlier argument against the anarchists who thought that one could do away with the "authoritarianism" inherent in modern industry. (Which is to say that the anarchists were right in saying that scientific socialism can never overcome the "despotic" alienation of machine industry. We now know - after the Bolshevik Revolution - that Bakunin won his debate with Marx (See "After the Revolution: Marx Debates Bakunin" in Tucker, The Marx-Engels Reader). ricardo > > >
re:Soviet objectives
At 14:35 7/04/98 -0400, you wrote: >>I know there is lots more to Marx than the Soviet experience; that's >>why me and Louis Proyect are comrades. >> >>ricardo > >Mr. Duchesne, please do not try to get any cheap laughs on PEN-L at my >expense. > >Louis Proyect For your information, it is Dr. Duchesne. Cheers, ajit sinha > >
re:Soviet objectives
>For your information, it is Dr. Duchesne. Cheers, ajit sinha Nobody addresses themselves in this fashion on PEN-L. I have a masters degree in philosophy. I wouldn't expect anybody to call me Master Proyect, now would I? To use titles like this would be a concession to the hierarchicalistic power structures that the capitalist system imposes like an evil template--sort of like underwear that is two sizes too small--on our phenomenological and heuristic essences. For clarification of the role of titles in class society, I recommend Zizek's article in the Journal of Social Mediations and Forensic Investigations, Fall 1986. Louis Proyect
re:Soviet objectives
> Date sent: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 12:09:13 -0400 > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Wojtek Sokolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: re:Soviet objectives > WS: > I do not see any contradiction here. There is a well known distinction > between manifest and latent functions of a particular social order. All I > am claiming that building true socialism was NOT the manifest function of > the x-USSR leaders, but one of the latent functions was that socialists and > national lib movements in certain countries could benefit from competition > between the imperial powers. Come on, the Soviets may have failed but building true socialism was their manifest -intended - objective. Show me a passage from Lenin or Stalin were they deny this goal. Of course, the Soviets inherited an empire and wanted to preserve it. > I do not see why we should endow the x-USSR with any special moral mission > -- the messianistic movements (i.e. proclaiming an entire nation as the > Messiah of all peoples) in that part of the world notwithstanding. It was > an imperial power just like any other imperial power, except that its > development was terribly belated, and thus the Russian leaders faced a > pressures to catch up with the rest of the gang (esp. Germany and Japan). They were not "just like any other imperial power" since they had socialist aims. The Cold War was an ideological-power struggle, Kissinger notwithstanding. > The fact that Russian leadership championed a socialist cause? That was > mere PR, a managerial ideology if you will, to get people go along with > their austerity measures. The "history belongs to us" and "we are building > a heaven on earth" spiel has incompartably greater popular appeal than the > liberal market-schmarket drivel or, for that matter, any bourgeois > mythology that, like the class that created is, lack guts and imagination. Lack guts and imagination? - they won the Cold War. > The religion of two abstract lines crossing each other to form an invisible > hand of providence can have an appeal only to spineless, asexual geeks on > Prozac - to borrow from Camille Paglia who, in turn, borrowed from > Nietzsche. Yeah, I guess the SS had more guts and spine! The real flesh-and-blood people (like the working class) need a > more exciting eschatology, and one was provided to them by the Soviet > leaders. A managerial eschatology if you will. > The Soviet state religion was not much different from other managerial > ideologies, like for example, the human relations school preaching Abraham > Maslow's 'hierarchy of needs.' Maslow (like Marx) might have been a > humanist, but nobody would seriously believe that corporate schmucks who > selectively used elements of his writing to forge a PR crap, genuinely > wanted to advance humanistic development of their employees. > The bottom line is that the problems experienced by the Russian empire and > its change in their state religion in no way undermine the work of Karl > Marx or the cause of socialism -- other than changing the conditions under > which that cause is pursued. The competition between two empires migh have > offered some short-term windfall profits to socialism here and there, but > that was about it. I know there is lots more to Marx than the Soviet experience; that's why me and Louis Proyect are comrades. ricardo > Regards, > > Wojtek Sokolowski > >
re:Soviet objectives
At 03:33 PM 4/7/98 -0400, you wrote: >Come on, the Soviets may have failed but building true socialism was >their manifest -intended - objective. Show me a passage from Lenin or >Stalin were they deny this goal. Of course, the Soviets inherited an >empire and wanted to preserve it. Well, who knows what really was on their minds -- we can forever speculate on that. As I recall (I think from Braverman), Lenin was also mesmerized by the works of Frederic Winslow Taylor - the quintessential capitalist. So who knows which work had a greater influence on his thinking? As I see it, the architects of the Soviet revolution were like foreign exchange students today - coming from a backward country to learn the modern Western ways. They might become attracted to various intellectual trends, managerial ideologies, systems of organizations - especially ones that they see as successful. They perhaps even genuinely think of implementing some of them. But then they go back to their backward countries and what they face is the material reality of local backward social institutions and organization of production. Even if the manage to gain a position of power there, it is that material reality and not the ideas they learned in the West that primarily dtermine their decisions and actions. Thinking otherwise would be putting Marx on his head. They can make ideological procalmations to please their local constituencies or foreign investors, and those proclamations might sound like the Western ideals. But their real course of action is bound and determine by the existing material conditions in their country. Nkrumah of Ghana is a good case in point. On th eone hand, he made ideolgical proclamations to please his Soviet or Chinese supporters, on th eother hand he had local constituencies whose consent was crucial to his rule. So as a result, Ghana's development was a mixture of various Western ideals (some of them implemented by powerful missions) and indigenous institutions. Perhaps Lenin thought of Marx's ideals, or even selectively used them to his own ends, but to maintain that the social structure and organization of production was ready for th eimplementation of production is putting Marx on his head. It is like saying that those who invented the myth of Ikarus were pioneers of modern avaiation. Daydreaming of something and being in a position to implement is are two different things. Regards WS PS. As to the bourgeois victory in the cold war - well, the christians are also supposed to win the battle between good and evil. Usually the narrator wins the mythical battle he has manufactured.
re:Soviet objectives
>I know there is lots more to Marx than the Soviet experience; that's >why me and Louis Proyect are comrades. > >ricardo Mr. Duchesne, please do not try to get any cheap laughs on PEN-L at my expense. Louis Proyect
re:Soviet objectives
At 11:57 AM 4/7/98 -0400, Ricardo wrote: >> So the question becomes not what Russia did to help the socialist cause >> worldwide, but how the competition between major imperial powers affected >> the socialist cause in different parts of the world, and what does the >> ebbing of that competition mean for that cause. > >See what I mean? On the one hand you dismiss the claim that Russia had >anything to do with promoting the socialist cause "worldwide", on the >other you say that Russia's competition with the West "affected the >socialist cause in different parts of the world". I do not see any contradiction here. There is a well known distinction between manifest and latent functions of a particular social order. All I am claiming that building true socialism was NOT the manifest function of the x-USSR leaders, but one of the latent functions was that socialists and national lib movements in certain countries could benefit from competition between the imperial powers. I do not see why we should endow the x-USSR with any special moral mission -- the messianistic movements (i.e. proclaiming an entire nation as the Messiah of all peoples) in that part of the world notwithstanding. It was an imperial power just like any other imperial power, except that its development was terribly belated, and thus the Russian leaders faced a pressures to catch up with the rest of the gang (esp. Germany and Japan). The fact that Russian leadership championed a socialist cause? That was mere PR, a managerial ideology if you will, to get people go along with their austerity measures. The "history belongs to us" and "we are building a heaven on earth" spiel has incompartably greater popular appeal than the liberal market-schmarket drivel or, for that matter, any bourgeois mythology that, like the class that created is, lack guts and imagination. The religion of two abstract lines crossing each other to form an invisible hand of providence can have an appeal only to spineless, asexual geeks on Prozac - to borrow from Camille Paglia who, in turn, borrowed from Nietzsche. The real flesh-and-blood people (like the working class) need a more exciting eschatology, and one was provided to them by the Soviet leaders. The Soviet state religion was not much different from other managerial ideologies, like for example, the human relations school preaching Abraham Maslow's 'hierarchy of needs.' Maslow (like Marx) might have been a humanist, but nobody would seriously believe that corporate schmucks who selectively used elements of his writing to forge a PR crap, genuinely wanted to advance humanistic development of their employees. The bottom line is that the problems experienced by the Russian empire and its change in their state religion in no way undermine the work of Karl Marx or the cause of socialism -- other than changing the conditions under which that cause is pursued. The competition between two empires migh have offered some short-term windfall profits to socialism here and there, but that was about it. The change of state religion in Russia is to socialism like a truck is to a hitchhiker. It is to be expected that at certain junction the truck driver will stop and announce the end of his trip, and the hitchiker must find other means, if he wants to proceed farther. If the hitchiker starts bemoaning the 'betrayal' by the driver -- he misunderstood his relationship with the driver and, for that matter, the nature of his travel. Regards, Wojtek Sokolowski
re:Soviet objectives
> Date sent: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 16:32:43 -0500 > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Wojtek Sokolowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject:Re: common threads WS: > That depends on how one views the REAL objective of the October Revolution. > If that REAL objective was the establishment of a socialist society worthy > its name, then I fully concur with Ricardo - the x-USSR was a gigantic > failure. > > If, on the other hand, that REAL objective was catching up with the > advanced capitalist powers of Western Europe and Japan, ideological > proclamations notwithstanding -- a view I tend to espouse -- then the > Stalinist policies should be viewed as a moderate (because of the > considerable human cost) success. The USSR was the power that could > withstand the defacto blockade by Western powers during the iner-war > period, defeat the Nazis, and effectively compete with American imperialism > during the post war period. Try as you may to keep apart the two discourses of morality and historical necessity, you will not succeed. That's one of the burdens of modernity (Enlightenment, French Revolution). > So the question becomes not what Russia did to help the socialist cause > worldwide, but how the competition between major imperial powers affected > the socialist cause in different parts of the world, and what does the > ebbing of that competition mean for that cause. See what I mean? On the one hand you dismiss the claim that Russia had anything to do with promoting the socialist cause "worldwide", on the other you say that Russia's competition with the West "affected the socialist cause in different parts of the world". ricardo > BTW, concerning the comments of our Argentinian friend, I do not think that > the US support for fascist dictatorships in South America and elsewhere had > much to do with the existence of the USSR. I think that support would have > existed with or without the existence of the x-USSR for a very simple > reason - the goal of US foreign policy was to back up Washington-friendly > forces (aka "our thugs") in that region that happen to be the agrarian > elites in cahoots with the urban bourgeoisie -- an unholy alliance that > generates fascist dictatorship (cf. Moore, _Social Origins..._ Rueschemeyer > et al., _Capitalist development and democracy_). > > The only effect x-USSR might have had was her support for the forces that > might undermine the Washington-friendly thugs - hence her superficial > support for national liberation movements in many developing countries*), > and the absence of that support for such movements in Argentina and other > South American countries. I cannot speculate about the reasons for that > lack of support, but it might have something to do with the American defeat > in Korea and Vietnam. The Russians might have wanted to avoid the same > mistake. > > - > *) The character of that support becomes apparent when we consider the > position Khruschev took during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The withrdawal of > the strategic missiles was the subject of the agreement, but the tactical > missiles (of which Americans knew little at that time, foolishly planning > an invasin of the island which would have turned into a major military > disaster) could have stayed. However Khruschev made the decision to > withdraw them as soon as he learned that Castro intended to use them as a > bargaining chip to strengthen his position vis a vis the US. > > > regards, > > > > > > > > Wojtek Sokolowski > Institute for Policy Studies > Johns Hopkins University > Baltimore, MD 21218 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > voice: (410) 516-4056 > fax: (410) 516-8233 > > Opinions expressed above are those of this writer only. They do not > represent the views or policies of the Institute for Policy Studies, the > Johns Hopkins University, or anyone else affiliated with these institutions. > > > >
