re: "Classic" revolutions

[Louis N Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, john gulick wrote:

>
> My question is this: does the abandonment of the peasant-led socialist
> revolution model not only have to do with the oft-cited reasons (the end of the
> Cold War and Soviet aid, the failure of past experiments due to imperialist
> aggression or counter-revolution from above, the decreasing demographic
> weight of the peasantry, and so on), but with the following: To the extent
> that the shards of social revolutionary movements that aim to take state
> power remain enamoured with "development," ultra-modern infrastructure and
> capital goods have become so costly and sophisticated that no movement that
> hopes to attain them can do so without inviting in the TNC's, and/or
> super-exploiting the ex-peasants as primary sector wage workers, both of which
> obviously by definition fly in the face of peasant-led mobilization.
>

Every socialist revolution in an agrarian society faces enormous
contradictions at the outset, such as the kind that John is referring to.
It is rooted in the contradictions between the needs of an urban working
class and peasant society. The workers need food, so the government
subsidizes meals at the expense of the peasants who can not get the market
price for their crops, but a controlled price. By the same token, peasants
can not get easy access to manufactured goods because they tend not to be
price-controlled. Beans remain at a fixed price, while fertilizer prices
inch upward. This is what Trotsky called the "scissors" effect and was the
downfall of the NEP in the 1920s. The same exact problem existed in
Nicaragua.

These problems would exist even if these revolutionary societies were left
on their own. But when you factor in economic blockade, low intensity
warfare and internal subversion, you end up with a complete mess. The
temptation then becomes to put a lid on things the way that Stalin did, or
step down gracefully like Ortega did. Or, you can try to steer a middle
road like Castro and move the whole society forward while maintaing some
controls on democratic rights, such as a free press. His suspicion toward
a free press might seem Stalinist to some, but considering the role of "La
Prensa" in Nicaragua, our judgment should be measured by the reality of
imperialist subversion.

If you want to avoid contradictions like these, then reconcile yourself to
life under capitalism. This is what the FSLN and the FMLN have come to at
this point. A new left is developing in Latin America that is not
interested in class peace. For more information on these developments,
check Jim Petras's article in NLR from an issue or two ago.

Louis Proyect