[PEN-L:27367] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: TV and income dispa rity

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

> Jim, it is too muchtrouble to reply to your posts. When I 
> select"reply" 
> from my Eudoramail, I am presented with a glob of text that 
> is too much 
> trouble to sortout. I urge you to contact a computer 
> programmer at your 
> university to helpyou sort things out. 
I am sorry about this. TheMicrosquat "Exchange" server seems to be misbehaving (and has done sofor weeks). I have called the tech support people and will do so again. Maybeit has something to do with the University contracting out information servicesto "CollegisEduprise." 
Here's what I wrote: 
>Louis' answer (seebelow) isn't really an answer. He seemed to be 
>blaming _all_ ofNorth Korea's plight on imperialism, on external events 
>and systems. Iwould say that imperialism has been a major or even _the_ 
>major cause of NK'sproblems, especially after the fall of the old Soviet 
>Union and thedrying up of aid & protection from them.  
> I asked if it'spossible that the self-appointed and self-perpetuating 
>elite (or rulingstratum) of NK helped to create those problems.   His 
>response is toquote some fine stuff by Marty Hart-Landsburg that I've read 
>before, that saysup to 1965 or so, NK was doing really well (at least 
>according to thestandards of industrialization, ignoring issues of 
>democracy and thelike). That doesn't say anything about how NK did after 
>1965 or so. It alsodoesn't deal with the relative role (or non-role) of 
>internal andexternal forces.   
>It's important toremember that by the 
>standards ofindustrialization, the old SU did pretty well until 1965 -- or 
>even later (1980?).So it would be a mistake to generalize from events 
>before 1965. Theold SU didn't collapse simply due to external factors (US 
>imperialism). (Ifone believes that only external forces are crucial, then 
>it's one step awayfrom the bogus Reaganite claim that US militarism under 
>their hero forcedthe SU to spend a lot of resources on the military, 
>causing itscollapse.) No, there were internal problems: the planning 
>system didn't workvery well, while the top-down nature of political, 
>social, andeconomic rule squelched the flow of information and 
>instructions fromthe rank and file workers and consumers that might have 
>made the planningsystem work better. When the old SU ran out of a surplus 
>of labor-power andwhen raw materials became less abundant, suddenly the 
>limits of thesystem became more severe. It's these internal problems that 
>allowed andencouraged the self-appointed internal elite to decide to bring 
>incapitalism...  
>(Among other things,the old SU was pretty good at 
>producing the sameitem in large quantity, but never good at producing 
>high-quality goods.I remember when I was discussing the import of a Soviet 
>nuclear power plantinto Cuba with some Cubans in the late 1970s
>(pre-Chernobyl),the argument of mine that hit the hardest was that I 
>doubted the qualityof the Soviet product.)   
> By analogy, if we wantto 
>understand NK'sproblems, it's a mistake to simply look at external causes, 
>especially when thepeople there don't seem to have any control over their 
>government:remember that power corrupts unless those who wield it are held 
>responsibledemocratically. (How else could the leadership of the country 
>be passed to Kim ilSung's son, in imitation of a feudal lord?)   


Reply 
 
I have a radically different point of view on all of the above but it is not really important. My outlook is based on the proposition put forth by the Bolsheviks who were overthrown and reprinted as the booklet âProgram and Principles of the Revolutionary Soviet Communistâ in 1979 by the old Communist Labor Party. The booklet was written at least a decade before it was reprinted in 1979. The booklet is worth sharing and I will make a copy for anyone that can make a commitment to reproduce it on the net. Simply email me the address to send a copy to. 
 
In 1917 part of my family had been located around a plantation not far from Augusts Georgia - historically. For my family Soviet democracy was infinitely superior to American democracy in this time frame âbetween 1917 and 1953. 
 
Ours is a country that did not know feudal economic and social relations. This is our strength and weakness. The transition from feudal social and economic relations to industrial society is uneven and cannot but carries forth all the forms of political development. Your statement:
 
>(How else could the leadership of the country 
>be passed to Kim il Sung's son, in imitation of a feudal lord?) <  
 
is unworthy of your learning. Why do people line the streets to hear the Pope or glorify the Queen of England? In your passion you may have perhaps insulted the noblest sons and daughters of Korea. We are in the most imperial of all nations and must be careful in our literary license. If anything (repeat: if anything) Lou errors on the side of caution. 
 
This question of the qualitative component of the social products requires an approach that focuses on the national technological development peculiar to a specific country and region. Why are Japanese vehicles superior to American vehicles? Anyone that has studied Soviet history had to study Stalin's policy and why he coined the _expression_ âAmerican efficiency and Russian Revolutionary Sweep.â  This is not a question of signals in the market or top down leadership but rather the national development of the productive forces and capitalistic or rather industrial culture. It is also a question of the boundaries of industrial society. This specifically means the impact of the invention of the transistor as the first stage in the technological revolution leading to computerized production. 
 
You sense the movement when you state: 
 
>When the old SU ran out of a surplus 
>of labor-power and when raw materials became less abundant, suddenly the 
>limits of the system became more severe. It's these internal problems that 
>allowed and encouraged the self-appointed internal elite to decide to bring
>in capitalism...  
 
What is the solution to âthe limits of the systemâ or rather the limits to the quantitative and qualitative expansion of the industrial infrastructure? The law of value â not simply its external forms, provide the solution to the question. Is this not a question of revolutionizing the means of production? On what basis could the means of production in the Soviet Union been revolutionized under âNKâ â Nikita Khrushchev? The existence of the Soviet space program proves a certain technological development. What was the material result of the 20th Congress from the standpoint of Marxism and not bourgeois theories of supply and demand, i.e., âthe flow of information and instructions from the rank and file workers and consumersâ? 
 
Again my question is why are Japanese cars better than American built cars?  To answer that this is a question of âtop leadershipâ and not rooted in the peculiarity of national technological development and transitions from feudal economic and social relations is not credible. 
 
It is a horrible misconception to speak of self-appointed elite's. The ruling groups in the Soviet Union were elected and the administrative apparatus was appointed. How do you propose effecting matters in hindsight? Ruling political formations are historically evolved. The Bolsheviks came to power in the course of a two decades struggle for political influence and authority. Every ruling group inherits a specific culture as development of the productive logic of a country. Over and over the Soviet Leaders and academia screamed, âwe are historically blind by definition and the advanced workers in the capitalist country must tell us how far we have advanced.â  âWe cannot base our advance upon ourselves.â
 
This was the concrete reality of public property relations in the industrial infrastructure as it emerged from lingering concrete feudal social and economic conditions.  
 
I do not misunderstand the question. I understand the questions from the standpoint of a Marxist â Bolshevik of the Lenin-Stalin mode, which has labored in industry from the time I was 16 years old up until 8 months ago â thirty years. The productive forces are not an abstraction. 
 
You write as it the ascendancy of Nikita Khrushchev is devoid of a specific boundary in the development of the industrial infrastructure â not simply capital. Soviet socialism was an industrial society at a specific stage of development, highly militarized to defeat imperial capital aggression.  You write as if there is not fundamental distinction between the policy of Stain and that of the buffoon Nikita Khrushchev â who existed as political leaders in different boundaries of industrial development and evolution.  Anyone that reads any of the historical data on Nikita Khrushchev policy can see why it disorganized and brought to a standstill the Soviet economy. His policy for agriculture was absurd.  Stalin is accused of terrorism not bourgeois â capitalist, policy. Fine, I do not disagree because Stalin was not a weakling or sucker for capital. I judge Stalin 90% correct and 10% incorrect and have not yet located the ten percent. Nikita Khrushchev was a bourgeois politician and both he and Stalin were of peasant stock. Nikita Khrushchev was no Marxist but a bourgeois surviving under conditions of Marxist rule. There is no internal cohesiveness to anything he said, much less his policies. This requires some elementary dialectics to understand. 
 
I am aware of the critics to my particular formulation of dialectic but I stand-alone in the crisp description and formulation of the boundaries of capital; the national colonial question as it evolved in America and the transition to a new mode of production. 
 
You speak of North Korea and the transition of power from Father to son with contempt and ignore the basis on which parliamentary forms of democracy emerge.  Did you not know that Chairman Mao was the last Great Emperor on earth to inherit the mandate of heaven and earth?  
 
We must never mistake our specific development for that of others. 
 
Everything you wrote in the above is an affront to the Soviet proletariat. Glosses over Nikita Khrushchevâs crimes and insult the Korean peoples North and South. Present the unraveling of the intensive and extensive development of the industrial infrastructure as it emerges from lingering feudal economic and social relations under public property relations.
 
Reconstruction in America is not understood and this is the exact period that mirrors Soviet development. I understand Reconstruction and have in the past written the clearest class summations â from the standpoint of the proletariat, unraveling on this period. 
 
I have had enough for today. 


Melvin P.