State Capitalist Mumbo Jumbo!

Robert Malecki malecki at algonet.se
Sun Sep 22 10:21:42 MDT 1996


>At 10:19 21-09-96 -0400, Louis N Proyect wrote:
>>
>>Generally, these terms are used to distinguish between a postcapitalist
>>state that has either been totally captured by bureaucracy or one that is
>>merely tainted by it. The USSR in 1920 or 1921 and Cuba today are regarded
>>as workers states with bureaucratic deformations. It is a kosher stamp.
>>
>>Meanwhile, the USSR of Stalin or the China of Mao are considered
>>"degenerated" workers states. Quantity becomes quality.


Jorn writes;
>The explanation I usually got from our local 4th Internationalists was that
>"degenerated" was used about Russia, because it once *had been* a workers'
>state. "Deformed" was used about E Europe, because these countries were
>sort of born with these defects.
>
>And sure this was the very serious heart of the matter: There were never
>anything like a workers' revolution in E Europe after WW2. Nevertheless the
>USSR army was able to create states more or less carbon copied from the USSR.

The first part of your letter is mostly correct Jorn. However here you go
off the deep end into confusion again. The Red Army did not create carbon
copies of a victorious
October revolution led by the Bolshevik party. In fact the red army occupied
east Europe, while smashing the armies of Hitler, and built deformed workers
state in the post second world war perion. This was after thermidor, China,
Spain and Germany
before the war. The East European states were built by the Stalinist
bureaucracy which after all of the other events and the liquidation of the
Trotskyists had absolute power in the Soviet Union. This is hardly a carbon
copy of Lenin and Trotsky's October Revolution and the dictatorship of the
Proletariat!
>
>So the theoretical problem was not so much that it did not fit into the
>Stalin-Trotsky controversy. Rather it was the much more serious one: If the
>USSR was more or less a socialist/workers' state, and the EE countries were
>"created in the image" of this by the USSR army, does this mean then that
>socialism can be created from capitalism by other forces than the working
>class? That "the emancipation of the working class" is not to be made by
>the working class itself?

This is also a lot of confusion and in fact politically wrong. The East
European states nor the Soviet Union were "Socialist" states. They were
transitional states! That is a big difference. The Soviet Union was a
transitional state based on the gains of October. The East European states
were transitional states based on the occupation of the Red Army and the
Stalinist bureaucracy! Both were built on the graves of on the one hand the
monarchy and bougeoisie in Russia and on the other the defeat of the armies
of Hitler a more extreme form of rule which came out of both the first world
war but also the bankrupt politics of the Stalinists.
>
>It was this serious question that the "degenerated/deformed workers' state"
>formula was not able to come to terms with. And which continued to trouble
>the different brands of 4th Internationalism when they had to deal with the
>development of other states along similar lines, from China and Cuba and up
>to and including the eventual collapse of stalinism on a world scale from
>1989.

It is this that the STATE CAPITALISTS have come to terms with. With the
victory of the Stalinists the State caps came up with a line of a plague on
both of your houses. Putting bougeois capitalist society on the same level
as the deformed and devenerated workers states! Actually the trouble with
the Fourth International was in a sense the same as the state capitalists.
Where as the state capitalists say a plague on both of your houses. The
liquidators and revisionists capitulated to post war Stalinism. Pablo first
with is entrism line. Later on Mandel and guerilla warfare.
Finally the SWP which appears to have gone into outerspace and are now even
less critical to the Cuban Stalinists then the Mandelite were.
>
>Tony Cliff's theory of bureaucratic state capitalism was the Marxist answer
>to this theoretical blind alley.

Tony Cliff.s theory is basically counter revolutionary and blind to the
contradictions
that the Left opposition clearly pointed out in regards to the deformed and
degenerated workers states. In fact climbing above and beyond the huge
battles that were taking place. A petty bougeois opposition that cowardly
backed away from defending these states despite Stalin from imperialism as
they still do today around China, North Korea, Cuba and Vietnam.

A trend that will never lead anything anywhere because they can not analise
or see living class struggle on and International level.

Warm Regards
Bob Malecki

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------

http://www.igc.net/~vicnot/bob

Read the book! Ha Ha Ha McNamara,
Vietnam-My Bellybutton is my Crystalball!

COCKROACH, a zine for poor and workingclass people
NOW ON LINE
--------------------------------------------------------




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




More information about the Marxism mailing list