Re: AUT: State capitalism?

["Nate Holdren" <nateholdren@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Harald-

I think I wasn't clear in my last post. I certainly am one of those who
think it's never appropriate to shoot workers and peasants struggling for a
better life. The questions I have in regard to the ex USSR are related to
this.
First, there's the question for me of what exactly different marxists are
saying about  Lenin(ism), the Russian revolution, and the relationship
between the theories/organizational forms used and the outcomes events took.
That is, I want to know what various people like Negri and others who I find
interesting and important think about Lenin(ism) both now and back in the
day, in part in order to assess these people. Anyone who's an apologist for
the ex USSR at any point is someone I'm very suspicious of.

Second, and more important to me, I'm interested in what the relationship
was between the ideas/organizational forms of various revolutionaries and
the outcomes of the actions of those revolutionaries. Some marxists say that
the outcome of the ex USSR was due to specific historical circumstances and
that organizations and ideas which are similar to those held by the
Bolsheviks will have a much different outcome now because the conditions are
different etc. I'm deeply skeptical of this argument but don't know enough
to fully dissect it in a fashion convincing to others.

Holloway's new book suggests that statist revolutionaries will by definition
end up (re)instituting some form of capital relation because of what the
state as social relation is. I don't know if I fully grasp the argument but
I find it very important, as it entails that statist revolutionaries can't
be completely anti-capitalist, undercutting various vanguardist apologists
like Zizek etc.

The last thing that all this raises for me is the question of how to link
statist revolutionary thought to the capital relation more thoroughly.
I'm being unclear.
I'm thinking of Michael Perelman's book _the invention of capitalism_ in
which he systematically looks at what various political economists said in
their works that are more 'theoretical' and fit for public consumption
(where they used ideas like laissez faire,  freedom etc) and compares these
works to political economists' policy related and private works in which
they argue for the state to take action (for the necessity of action by the
state) constitutive of capital relations.
Pereleman then starts to point out how certain gaps and logical leaps and
inconsistencies in the more palatable 'theoretical' works of political
economists can be read in relation to their demands for force to be used
against the working class.
What I'm interested in is being able to do the same with vanguardists, to be
able to say more than just "oh they're just state capitalists, would-be
ruling class in waiting" but rather to be able to note specifically where
the dominating relationships of state capitalism can be found (buried) in
the ideas and writings of contemporary and 'classical' authoritarian
socialists.

I think what I want to ask is whether the terrible outcomes of authoritarian
socialists are accidental or are a totally predictable and unsurprising
(though horrific) outcome of the ideas and organizational forms that
vanguardists have taken. If the outcomes are an accident, then there's less
of a basis for attacking vanguardists. If the outcomes are NOT an accident
(which is somewhat what Holloway argues,  maybe more implies as he doesn't
adderss this debate in so many words) then we have both a more compelling
reason for and more effective arguments with which to attack vanguardists.
I suspect the events and outcomes of the exUSSR were not accidental (ie,
unrelated to the Bolshevik ideas and organizational forms) but I don't know
enough to back this up in an argument, to move from 'suspecting' to
'knowing' or being able to make a convincing argument.

Sorry if this is unclear, I'm not sure how to phrase this better.

Nate




Harald wrote-
>You write: "A lot of the status of Leninism seems to hang on
>how one assesses this time period.(Negri, for example, in
>my limited reading seems to think that at the time  the leninist
>model was appropriate but is not so any longer. I have my
>suspicions though that this was never a very good model.
>I don't have the knowledge to back these up or even investi-
>gate them very well, though.)"
>
>Again there are reasons to ask, is there any excuse for such
>a well-educated man as Tony Negri to claim that "the leninist
>model was appropriate but is not so any longer. I am far less
>concerned about the abstract word "model" than the reality of
>millions of corpses that hides back this label. It is also very
>much a question of which side you defend in a class struggle.
>Which side are you on, boys and girls? Which side are you on?
>It is fine that he believes it is not any longer a appropriate
>model, but I cannot help but feel that it still sounds as a pretty
>instrumental point of view. Does it for instance imply that
>Negri means the Cheka was appropriate once upon time,
>that the dissolving of the soviets at gunpoint in the spring
>and summer of 1918 were appropriate, that machine guns
>were an approriate means to end strikes and extort grain
>from poor peasants until they starved to death. That slave
>labour, the militarization of labour, and work camps was
>oppropriate etc ... I really wonder how this all fits into the
>"refusal of work" perspective?  The "leninist model" was
>not just some theoretical construct to be studied at universities.
>It was a deadly reality. And it scares me when people are
>able to abstract so much from people of flesh and blood,
>joys, sorrows, pains, dreams, and dreams and hopes
>turned into corspes and cannibalism.
>
>These are pretty serious questions, and are directly related
>to why so many workers have lost a belief in a world beyond
>capitalism.
>
>This is not just simply a question of "different accounts" and
>"friction ".  It is that some of us are sincerly opposed to
>shooting workers and peasants struggling for a better life
>and more self-determination. And have never thought it
>"appropriate".
>
>Harald





_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---