Re: "Transitional states"

[malecki@xxxxxxxxxx (Robert Malecki)]

Adam writes,
>Malecki,
>
>I'm doing my best to have a rational discussion with you.
>Perhaps this was a mistake . . .

Sorry Adam i thought you were talking about gardening and got confused..

>
>Malecki writes:
>> Russia in 1917 was a specific workers state. A dictatorship of the
>> proletariat.
>
>Adam:
>As far as I am concerned, the words "workers state" and "dictatorship of the
>proletariat" are just two ways of saying the same thing. It's like
>courgette and zucchini.

OK, let us take that as courgette and zucchini..
>
>Now, if you think they are two related but different terms, like courgette and
>marrow, or even courgette and cucumber, then please explain.
>
>Malecki writes:
>> Trotsky talked about a bridge between capitalism and communism.
>> he also talked about the Soviet Union being a transitional state. In
>> transition from capitalism to communism.
>> >
>
>Adam:
>Well, of course, a socialist state is a state in transition from capitalism
>to communism, a state in the process of withering away. The point is that
>the Russian state between say 1921 and 1928 was going in the OPPOSITE
direction.
>The state was doing anything but wither away. It WAS a workers state, but
instead
>of less coercion, less inequality, we had more coercion and more inequality.

Adam above is trying some hat trick. The Russian state has to be seen in
context of what was going on in real time. We had a civill war, attempts of
counter-revolution, a backward country with a class concious proletariat in
a sea of peasants. We had the defeat of the german revolution and a whole
lot of other stuff that was going on. So stand there with your textbook
version of the state whithering away. It does not really help. There were
two lines Stalin and Trotsky and the left opposition. That was the reality.
Which side were you on? Or is it still the state capitalist line which puts
itself above this reality..
>
>Adam:
>> >After this, it wasn't. So a state in transition from a workers state to
>> something
>> >else means something for the period after 1917. For othordox
trotskysists, this
>> >transition went on for 70 years, which seems to me to be rather a long
>> "transition",
>> >certainly 40 years longer than Trotky thought it would be. Never mind
>> though, at least
>> >I understand what is meant.
>> >
>> >But there were no workers revolutions, in the sense of revolutions made by
>> workers,
>> >in any of the other states you mention. In some ( China,Vietnam,Cuba )
>> there were
>> >revolutions, but in others, the states were produced by tanks rolling in (
>> Eastern
>> >Europe ). Nor were there workers states in the sense that Marx + Lenin meant

Adam i took up these questions in my answer to Neil. Why don,t you read this
stuff and answer it and we can continue from there...
>>
>Malecki:
>> Hello there! I said that the above states did not come about through a
>> workers revolution.
>
>Adam:
>Do you have a brain or not ?
>It is exactly my point that there were no workers revolutions.

What are you trying to say to in the above. If for example the situation in
Germany would have been in favor of the Spartacists being able to win with
the help of the red Army in 1918, we would not have marched west while the
Spartacists were taking the cities in the east. I would have. Call it what
you want.
>
>How can something be in transition from state A to state B when it was never
>in state A to start with ?

This is just your idea of reality. Has nothing to do with a marxist analis
of the events of the time. nor reality for that matter. The logic is that
the Bolsheviks never should have went for it in Russia in 1917.. Everything
was a big mistake..
>
>I am not sure which direction you have the transition going in.
>Is it from capitalism to socialism, or from socialism to capitalism ?

I,ll bet you don,t know. It appears you have no understanding of what a
revolution is.. You can,t tell the difference between the Red army and
Pattons army making the race for Berlin. In fact the state caps just don,t
understand because you have a concious policy of plague on both your houses.
A liquidation of history and class struggle.

What is funny is Neil who sees a difference in a demo on the labor tax and
can,t seee the difference between the Russian revolution and im,perialism.
Wow! Talking about being blind...
>
>case 1 :
>"GDR was in transition from capitalism to socialism"

The GDR was occuppied by the Red Army. Long after the consolidation of
Stalins power. The problem was not that the red Army won and occupied half
of east Europe. The problem was the leadership which was incaple of
leading..But they did do something obviouly. Or do you think the cold war
was a myth.

Do you think the blockade against Cuba is a myth? I mean those big bad guys
Fidel and Che who wrpped of the sugar companies and United fruit etc. Try
seeing what is going on and stop whinning about everybody is the class enemy.
>
>Counter argument:
>Well, facts are stubborn things.
>What we have today isn't socialism, is it ?

No we do not have socialism today. Only by smashing imperialism everywhere
and a long period of struggle will that goal be reached and communism is
even futher on down the road..

>So at best, it was in transition from capitalism to capitalism.
>A state which is in transition from capitalism to capitalism sounds like
>a capitalist state to me. Also, there are two uncomfortable facts :
>at the foundation of the state, the working class rose up against it
>( 1953 ) , and at the demise of the state, the workers rose up against
>it.

The above is State capitalism in a nutshell! Nothing ever happens. There are
no contradictions and you are sitting on your chair waiting for the real
thing to happen. Revolution will be a long and bloody road and the state
caps will be sitting on the sidelines watching and waiting for the real
revolution. Nothing can change that i guess. We will have to expect that
some petty bourgeois intellectuals will try and take the easy way out. Good
luck..

>
>I have tried to present a logical argument, which you can argue against.
>I have tried to make it simple and use everyday language, in order to
>make my argument clear. Please explain where you agree and where you
>disagree.
>
>Adam.
>
Adam your logical arguement has nothing to do with living reaslity and
trying to change it. It is only the historical experience of the left
opposition and the Bolshevik party that have intervened in history on the
side of the International proletariat. It will those forces who must come
together to provide the leadership in the coming uppheavals..

malecki in exile..




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---