Re: [Marxism] writings of trotsky on second chinese revolution

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 3/27/2009 12:35:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
_sartesian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:sartesian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)  writes:  ________ 
 
>> I think that, the above is absolutely correct, and that makes me  disagree 
with WL's assertion that "The autonomous nature of Soviets -  the  armed 
workers, is not sufficient to create and administer a nationwide   industrial 
infrastructure. At best the Soviets can only actualize the state  authority as 
the 
property holder". 
 
The soviets, with a small "s,"councils, constitute the real overthrow of  the 
value relation in that the councils compose the political and economic  
authority under the collective direction of the workers, the producers  
themselves. 
 This is essential for transforming the goal/role of production  from the 
accumulation of exchange value to the satisfaction, and creation of  more 
sophisticated, needs and use.<< 
 

Comment 
 
Perhaps as a theoretical model, during the rising era of industrial  
production. 
 
Was the 
 
a). Commune (Soviet) form of the uprising (revolution), and vehicle by  which
b). the Lenin group seized power (the insurrection) 
c). sufficient to organized the reconstruction task of the revolution and  
defeat the counterrevolution expressed as the Civil War? Yes. 
 
Was this sufficient to overthrow the value relation. No. 
 
The older I become the more it seems that the Soviets were in a no win  
situation, not very different from the Paris Commune on the scale of  history.  
I 
am of the opinion that it is impossible to leap to economic  communism - 
overthrow the value relation, on the basis of the industrial system.  From this 
new 
proposition I look backwards and reexamine Soviet history. 
 
The value relation cannot be abolished on the basis of the industrial mode  
of production be it socialist and most certainly not on the basis of   
capitalism. 
 
ll. 
 
The insurrection, meaning the entire Bolshevik group without regard to  
shades of difference, who actually took the authority of the state, made  
decisions 
to concentrate the power of the central state administration/authority  into 
the hands of individuals with the most knowledge, experience and  unwaveringly 
loyal to the their insurrection and then the revolution. The first  impulse 
and purpose of the victorious insurrection was to consolidate and save  itself 
as the condition for the revolutionary advance. This was expressed in the  
decree of December 17. 1917 signed by Lenin establishing the Cheka. The Cheka  
would outline the organization and concentration of the state power  . . .  
Forever. The symbol of the Cheka was not a hammer and sickle but the sword and  
shield. 
 
The Cheka became the most important military and security arm of the  
Bolshevik insurrection, government, Soviets and then the revolution. In 1921 
the  
Troops for the "Internal Defense of the Republic" (a branch of the Cheka)  
numbered 200,000. These troops policed labor camps, ran the Gulag system,  
conducted 
requisitions of food, jailed political opponents (on both the right  and the 
left), put down peasant rebellions, riots by workers, and mutinies in  the Red 
Army. 
 
This real life and real time manifestation of the state , (alliance between  
workers and peasants) was birthed as a bureaucratic organization and  
centralization of power; and then later, its expression as a constitutional  
regime. 
This real time political and social force became "essential for  transforming 
the goal/role of production from the accumulation of exchange value  to the 
satisfaction, and creation of more sophisticated needs, and use,"  .  . .? 
 
Yes? 
 
On the other hand I know you do not pose things as simple polarities. The  
councils as the social and political basis for the real overthrow of the  
czar/bourgeoisie, made it possible for a group of insurrectionaries to take  
power. 
The masses cannot seize political power, only a group of  insurrectionaries. 
The insurrectionary movement, as distinct from the political  revolution 
expressed in the Soviets and masses, dictated the path forward based  on an 
appraisal of social forces. 
 
Let us see if this question can be attacked from a different angle. 
 
lll. 
 
The state as a bureaucratic organization and centralization of power had to  
be the property holder in Soviet Russia and here is the source of 90% of the  
problems of the October Revolution. This "condition of the revolution" was in  
turned created by a complex of internal and external factors to Soviet Power. 
 
The state as property holder was the practical solution in a country  (within 
a state) without a statewide industrial infrastructure. Planning of  
industrial development could not be done on a local level, only at the summit 
of  
power. To a vast degree the Supreme Soviets became a rubber stamp institution  
deferring to those with real knowledge; a broad vision and direction of 
national  
tasks, and those representing the concentration of power. Complex problems 
were  excited by the state being the property holder.  Fortunately, we will not 
 
have to repeat or relive this history, even if someone subjectively wanted to 
do  such. We already possess a highly developed post industrial 
infrastructure. 
 
These problems of Sovietism range from classifying being late to work as an  
"economic crime" or sabotage, to state intervention/interference in the  
administrative spheres of production. When the state is property holder, civic  
violations becomes crimes against the state. 
 
That is to say, the role of the proletarian state "should" be - ideally,  
guardian of public property and not the property holder. Ideally, government  
agencies should not administer any aspect of production, with possibly the  
exception being the military sphere. Government should write and project goals, 
 
with local government ensuring the development of the cultural infrastructure,  
rather than say a steel mill. 
 
The State as holder of public property, creates and then drives an  impulse  
. . . . . and through government, gives its agencies the power to  override 
trade unions and council forms of organization. The Red bureaucracy  that grew 
up on the basis of state agencies, becomes a help, hindrance and then  evolves 
into an antagonists to all democratic impulses of the workers. Not  because it 
is Red, but because it is this historical creature of bureaucracy.  The 
bureaucracy reproduces itself in a widening scope as part of its own self  
logic. 
 
The need for centralization of all power and authority in Soviet Russia was  
to overwhelming for the individual, party and class. "Land to the tiller,  
industry to the workers and death to the oppressors" was an emotional and  
ideological component of the Soviets as living organisms. This sentiment ran  
into 
the reality of the state as property holder and the Red bureaucracy as the  
centralization of power and knowledge; knowledge of the entire field of play in 
 
a huge country - state, saddled with 150,000 peasants, and no national  
(statewide) infrastructure tying the Soviets together into a national 
framework.  Or 
rather what tied the Soviets together as a statewide infrastructure was the  
state and Red bureaucracy - party members or the emergence of the Soviets (big 
 "c") as the constitutional regime. . 
 
The working class in the Soviet Union was being newly formed from peasants,  
not just historically but specifically between the period of 1928 to the  
outbreak of the Second World Imperialist War. One has to be culturally  
conditioned to arrive on time at work everyday, as a class. 
 
In other words to make plain what Lenin meant when he said we would pay for  
our stupidity. Lenin did not mean illiteracy, which is easily corrected with  
books and teachers. Nor did he mean a lack of theoretical depth. Why Lenin  
adopted "certain attitudes" towards the trade unions and what he called the  
anarcho syndicalist deviation will be discussed and debated as every  
generationâ
s reassessment of the history of Soviet Power. At this point in my  life I am 
not prepared to say Lenin was practically or historically wrong. I  believe 
the Soviet Revolution was historically trapped. 
 
lV. 
 
The culture of value (not the unrestricted law of value) is the  historically 
inescapable school where the proletariat is socialized or learns  how to be 
associated producers. The working class becomes ideologically  conditioned and 
driven by deep economic impulses to perform as a class of  industrial 
producers. Millions adopt a tradition of producing based on an  industrial 
division of 
labor, even under conditions of abolition of bourgeois  private property 
relation. At least this was true at the beginning of the 20th  century. 
 
The ideal institutions for this school of cooperation/value production (not  
the unrestricted law of value) was the trade unions under Soviet conditions. 
The  trade unions were bureaucratic organizations charged with an additional 
task of  checking up on the systematic fulfillment of tasks. In real life the 
trade  unions were treated as state organizations, or subsidiaries of the 
state. 
 
Everything was treated as a subsidiary of the state. 
 
The newly formed working class of Russia emerged from feudal economic,  
political and social relations, with its generations of ritual customs.  
Uprooting 
this ritual culture is more than a notion. The Soviets and trade  unions were 
saddled with feudal culture. Rather than electing leading members  based on a 
general criteria of protecting the interest of the laborers, the  interest of 
the laborers was expressed as voting and electing folks that were  part of 
ones extended family or village. That is through the peasant, the  ideology and 
culture of the value relation, was reproduced and penetrated the  fabric of 
Soviet society. 
 
In my estimate the issue is not posed as the bureaucratic organization and  
centralization of power ridding on the backs of the peasants or workers for 
that  matter. One overthrows the value relation in harmony with the state as 
the  
supreme bureaucratic organization and centralization of power. Under 
conditions  of industrialism such was not possible. 
 
I do not believe we will face this problem, or that the issue of public  
property in America is bound up with the state as property holder. I am adamant 
 
against any schemes proposing the state as property holder in America.  My  
tendency in this period is going to be against nationalization of anything 
other  
than sectors like the military and energy distribution. I do not consider 
this  position anarchism.
 
WL.  (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu