"Transitional states"

Karl Carlile joseph at indigo.ie
Fri Jun 7 05:10:59 MDT 1996


Karl: If there there never was workers state in Russia even immediately
after October 1917 then one can conclude that the Bolshevik party never
established a workers' state. Adam you have, I as understand it, gone
many steps further than the SWP(UK) in your revisonism. Perhaps, secretly,
this is the position of the SWP on revolution in Russia and you are now
letting us in on the secret.

It is good fun to read your mail from time once it is not taken too
seriously.
                                                    Karl Carlile


> Malecki,
>
> I'm doing my best to have a rational discussion with you.
> Perhaps this was a mistake . . .
>
> >
> > Adam writes:
> > >States in transition from what to what ?
> > >
> > >Russia in 1917 was a workers state.
> >
>
> 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.
>
> 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:
> > >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.
> >
> 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.
>
> How can something be in transition from state A to state B when it was never
> in state A to start with ?
>
> I am not sure which direction you have the transition going in.
> Is it from capitalism to socialism, or from socialism to capitalism ?
>
> case 1 :
> "GDR was in transition from capitalism to socialism"
>
> Counter argument:
> Well, facts are stubborn things.
> What we have today isn't socialism, is it ?
> 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.
>
> case 2 :
> GDR was in transition from socialism to capitalism
>
> Counter argument:
> There was no workers revolution. Socialism cannot be achieved without
> workers revolution. There never was any workers state, as there was in
> Russia. Therefore there never was any socialism in the GDR. Therefore
> it cannot be in transition from socialism to anything, because it never
> was socialist.
>
> 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 Rose
> SWP
> Manchester
> UK
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>      --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>


     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list