hariette spierings hariette at
Thu Feb 29 18:46:52 MST 1996

Contrary to the idealistic and facetious wishes of the professorial
"smotherers" of debate - and without even bothering to dwell ourselves upon
the obscenities hurled by the lumpen elements - it is from the confrontation
of thesis how Marxism develops.  That is why we talk of dialectics as the
method of Marxism - and such in essence is the nature of contradiction, the
universal law!.

Therefore, it is not accidental that this MARXIST method once again has
proven to be useful in clearly defining the erroneous views of the
Trotskysts.  And here I refer to Trostkysm as the expression of bourgeois
ideology who has as its characteristic the DEMAGOGIC use of the label of
"Marxism" in order to pour the most acerb vitriol against the proletarians
leaders of the ACTUAL and REAL revolutions of the class.  To show how absurd
their claim to Leninism is not an idle question.

Here we have but two possibilities - that some followers of Trotskysm
actually believe themselves to be followers of Lenin because others exist
who have cynically deceived them to that effect, or worse, that they
themselves would want to cynically deceive others knowing perfectly well
that not to be the case.
Either way, it is a service to the revolution to straighten things out.
Otherwise, what kind of Marxism would this be?  A Marxism based on deception
- or on self delusion - would not conform in any way to Lenin's immortal

"Marxism is allpowerful, because it is true, it is complete and harmonious
and cannot be reconciled with any falsehood, with any superstition or with
any kind of bourgeois oppression".

Therefore let us take what has transpired in the brief exchange on the
question of State Capitalism, Lenin's position on this issue, and Stalin's
role in putting it in practice.

First it was affirmed by Mssrs the Trotskysts that the Soviet Union ceased
to be socialist by 1928 because it had built state capitalism contrary to
lenin's wishes.  We demonstrated then that in fact it was Lenin who DEMANDED
the building of state capitalism and, moreover, that he DEMANDED it
peremptorily, enjoining the proletariat and the Party NOT TO SHRINK from

To this they countered by saying that socialism existed in the Soviet Union
until shortly after Lenin died - because that is what is meant when they say
that "the state bureaucracy under Stalin usurped the leadership of the Party".

So now it was not in 1928 that the Soviet Union ceased to be socialist, but
in 1924.  However, even before Lenin's death, in January 1924, the Thirteen
Conference of the Communist Party had already condemned the Trotskyst
opposition declaring it as a PETTY BOURGEOIS DEVIATION OF MARXISM.  So
Stalin had already the upper hand in 1924 and Trostsky was already in the

In the Fifteen Party Congress of 1927 this was made completely evident by
the routing by 724.000 Party members' votes for Stalin's central Committee
against only 4,000 for the bloc of Trotskysts and Zinovietites - even
together they could not muster a decent show, and then their parallel
October revolution "celebrations" ended in overwhelming derision and swept
off the streets by the proletarian masses. On 14 November of that year
Trotsky and Zinovieb were expelled from the Party. These are the facts.

Now, what was that Lenin was saying in 1918?.  These are his words:

"Is it not clear that from the MATERIAL, economic and productive point of

So from the MATERIAL point of view, Russia in 1918 was not even state
capitalist - for that is what Lenin meant by the 'threshold' of socialism.
What was it then from this point of view?  Lenin also points out the answer:
"At present (1918), petty bourgeois capitalism prevails in Russia".

And he adds: "" is ONE AND THE SAME ROAD that leads from it to BOTH
large scale state capitalism and to socialism, THROUGH ONE AND THE SAME
intermediary station called "national accounting and control of production
and distribution".

And why, then, do the Trotskysts make such a bugbear of state capitalism?

Lenin also has the answer:

"It has not ocurred to them (to the petty bourgeois revolutionists) that
state capitalism woul be a STEP FORWARD as compared with the present state
of affairs in our Soviet Republic".

And forecasting their future role in denigrating the Soviet Union, this is
what Lenin had to say about what the petty bourgeois revolutionists would
have to say:  "What!  Transition to state CAPITALISM in the Soviet SOCIALIST
Republic would be a step forward?.....Isn't this the betrayal of socialism?"

And he answers them in this way "Here we come to the root of the ECONOMIC
mistake....." (of the petty bourgeois revolutionists).

"Firstly, ...(they).... do not understand what kind of TRANSITION it is from
capitalism to socialism that gives us the right and the grounds to call our
country the Socialist Republic of Soviets".

"Secondly, they reveal their PETTY BOURGEOIS mentality precisely by NOT
RECOGNISING the petty bourgeois element as the PRINCIPAL enemy of socialism
in our country".

"Thirdly, in making a bugbear of "state capitalism", they betray their
failure to understand that the Soviet state differs from the bourgeois state

"Let us examine these three points.  No one, I think, in studying the
question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional
character.  Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Socialists
Soviet Republic implies the determination of Soviet power to achieve the
transition to socialism, and NOT that the new economic system is recognised
as a socialist order".

"But what does the word "transition" mean?  Does it not mean, as applied to
economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of
BOTH capitalism and socialism?  Everyone will admit that it does.  But not
all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually
constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the
present time.  And this is the crux of the question".

"Let us ennumerate these elements:

1) patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming;
2) small commodity production (this includes the majority of those peasants
who sell their grain):
3) private capitalism
4) state capitalism
5) socialism.

Russia is so vast and so varied that all these different types of
socio-economic structures are intermingled.  This is what constitutes the
specific feature of the situation.  The question arises: what elements
predominate? Clearly, in a SMALL-PEASANT COUNTRY, the petty bourgeois
element predominates, and it must predominate, for the great majority of
those working the land are small commodity producers.  The shell of our
state capitalism (grain monopoly, state controlled entrepeneurs and traders,
bourgeois co-operators) is pierced now in one place, now in another by
PROFITEERS, the chief object of profiteering being GRAIN.  It is in this
field that the main struggle is being waged.  between what elements is this
struggle being waged if we are to speak in economic actegories such as
"state capitalism"?  Between the fourth and the fifth in the order in which
I have just ennumerated them? Of course not.  It is not state capitalism
that is at war with socialism, but the petty bourgeois plus private
capitalism fighting together against both state capitalism and socialism.
The petty bourgeoisie oppose EVERY kind of state interference, accounting
and control, whether be state capitalist or state socialist".

And he adds:

"Those who fail to see this show by their blindness that they are slaves of
petty bourgeois prejudices........"

"The petty bourgeois who hoards his thousands is an enemy of state
capitalism.  He wants to employ his thousands for himself, against the poor,
in opposition to any kind of state control.  And the sum total of these
thousands, amounting to many thousands of millions, for the base for
profiteering, which undermines our socialist construction".

And he explains:

""Let us assume that a certain number of workers produce in a few days
values equal to 1,000.  let us then assume that 200 of this total vanishes
owing to petty prfiteering, various kinds of embezzlement and the "evasion"
by the samll proprietors of Soviet decrees and regulations.  Every
politically concious worker will say that if better order and organisation
cpuld be obtained at the price of 300 out of the 1,000 he would be willing
to give 300 instead of 200, for it will be quite easy under Soviet power to
reduce this "tribute" later on to, say, 100 or 50, once order and
organisation are established and once the petty-bourgeois disruption of
state monopoly is completely overcome".

"This simple illustration in figures, which I have deliberately simplified
to the utmost in order to make it absolutely clear, explain the present
CORRELATION of state capitalism and socialism.  The workers hold state power
and have every legal opportunity of "taking" the whole thousand without
giving up a single kopek, except for socialist purposes.  This legal
opportunity, which rests upon the actual transition of power to the workers,
is an element of socialism".

"But in many ways, the small proprietary and private capitalist element
undrmines this legal position, drags in profiteering, hinders the execution
of Soviet decrees.  State capitalism would be a GIGANTIC STEP FORWARD EVEN
IF WE PAID MORE than we are paying at present (I took a numerical example
deliberately to bring this out more sharply), because it is worth paying for
"tuition", because it is useful for the workers, because victory over
disorder, economic ruin and laxity is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING; because the
continuation of the anarchy of small ownership is the greatest, the most
serious danger, and it will CERTAINLY be our ruin (unless we overcome it)
whreas not only will the payment of a heavier tribute to state capitalism

"When the working class has learned how to defend the state system against
the anarchy of small ownership, when it has learned to organise large-scale
production on a national scale, ALONG STATE CAPITALIST LINES, it will hold,
if I may use the expression, all the trump cards, and the consolidation of
socialism would be assured".

When was the "petty-bourgeois element" decidedly conquered in the Soviet Union?
Was in not with collectivisation OF AGRICULTURE and the routing of the
kulaks?  Because that is what collectivisation did away with, the
petty-producers economy. Was not then, and only THEN, that Soviet Russia
finally stood in the threshold of socialism and marched vigourosly through

Funny how Mssrs the Trotskysts precisely "end socialism" in Russia when it
had not even got to the threshold, and precisely in the very eve of Soviet
Russia  arriving to this threshold.  Collectivisation took place from 1930
to 1934 - and only in 1929 was one of the most difficult problems of
industrialisation, namely the accumulation of funds for the building of
heavy industry solved.  Without this, collectivisation would have been

Soviet Russia had suceeded in 1930 in completing in the main the
preparations for the crossing of the threshold of socialism - having laid
the basis of a solid state capitalist economy to equal and even surpass the
best creation of imperialist capitalism in this department.  All this would
have been impossible without the proletarian dictatorship.  And all this
Leninist development was precisely achieved DESPITE all the plots of the
enemies of Soviet power, including (and PRINCIPALLY), Trotsky and his

Any thing else?

Adolfo Olaechea

     --- from list marxism at ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list