State capitalism and party membership

[Raymond Hickman <R-HICKMAN@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The debate over the nature of the former Soviet Union or present
day Cuba has produced no resolution. From my point of view I
would say this is because Adam refuses point blank to accept a
multifaceted and dynamic understanding of socialism. There seems
to be no room for example for the threefold approach I put
forward; one which look at property relations, needs satisfaction
and workers power in conjunction. Perhaps at this time there can
be no resolution.

But I would like to ask anyone on this list who would demand
adherence to one or other interpretation of Soviet history -
degenerate workers state, socialist, state capitalist - as a
prerequisite for party membership, why?

Now I am sure people will come back to me and say that unless you
have a correct analysis of the USSR, then you will not be able to
formulate correct policies on current events. I will be told that
if your understanding of the USSR is stalinist, ultra-leftist,
revisionist - pick the dismissive insult of your choice - the
this will, as surely as night follows day, be reflected in your
day to day policies and activities.

If this is the case then could someone please explain to me how
organisations in Britain from 3rd, and 4th internationalist
traditions, state capitalists, council communist,
anarcho-communists and anarchist all came to the same conclusion
that the way to defeat the poll tax was through millitant
community based action, including non-payment? Similarly could
someone explain how it is that a similar range of organisations
have also come to the conclusion that the way to defeat the far
right is through militant ideological and physical confrontation?

Perhaps the impassioned pleading for the need for party members
to all tow the same historical line, has more to do with
protecting the continuity of the organisations concerned, rather
than promoting the interests of the class as a whole.

If I was being really cynical, I might suggest that the
self-survival and self-promotion instincts of various
revolutionary organisations can explain quite a bit about their
politics.

For example in the cold war climate a theory of state capitalism
and the proclamation of neither 'Washington nor Moscow'could be
quite organisationally useful. It would create a particular
identity, always useful for a new product in the market place.
And that identity could be sold as a clean break with the
(recent) past; the all new untainted revolutionary product.

I am just glad that I don't sucumb to such functionalist
cynicism.

All the best Raymond Hickman



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---