To Xxxx

Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx xxxxxxxx at
Thu Aug 10 13:18:55 MDT 2000

Dear Julio,

I still maintain my position that Lenin aimed to promote a non-capitalist
modernity. In my humble opinion, criticizing Lenin for not getting away with
property relations and labor management relations inside the factories is a
*revisionist* reading of Russian revolution. Given that Russian revolution took
place in a backward country *disappointing* the expectations of mechanistic
Marxists, "non socialistic nature" of the regime was an untimely critique
directed by Marxists like Rosa, at Lenin, at a time when the regime seriously
needed consolidation both  internationally and domestically. Evidently, Rosa
had an orthodox bias, which she unjustly reflected upon Russia. It diverted
attention to the benefit of liberals, Mensheviks, social democrats and other
right wingers who were in a deliberate opposition to the regime in the name of
bourgeois democracy and anti-authoritarianism.. Rosa, like other orthodox
marxists, fucked Lenin and turned against him in the final analyis. So,
briefly,  this is the context of  opposition to Lenin. My point is that if we
do not take into consideration this oppositional context before and after the
revolution, abstract criticism of Lenin indirectly puts us in a bourgeois camp,
rather than in a left wing camp

Lately, I am reading Lenin's pamphlet written in October 1917 for my
dissertation, "The Impeding Catastrophe and  How to Combat it". While we are
judging Lenin, we should be extremely careful about taking into consideration
the context of Lenin's marxism. In this pamphlet, Lenin talks about the notion
of  "state monopoly tendency"  for the first time. I suspect that this what you
have in mind when you criticize Lenin for apologizing Taylorism and coporate
(rational) control over labor in  factories. Again,. this is unfair Pino. First
off,  the context of Lenin's discussion of state monopoly capitalism is
*Kerensky government*. Criticizing the government for tolerating economic chaos
"instead of introducing state control of the war economy (which Lenin thought
would be vital for consolidating the bourgeois democratic phase of the
revolution),  Lenin goes on to attack the Mensheviks and Social democrats for
* failure* to see that this state control of economy  is necessary  for the
"complete material preparation for socialism; the threshold of socialism".
Accordingly, Lenin did *not* believe in state monopoly capitalism; he only
wanted to make this phase of capitalism in Russia as *a factor in accelerating
the socialist revolution. So he was only *strategic* when his suggestions
included: 1) "forced centralization of bank capital into a single bank under
state auspices 2) nationalization of the major syndicates 3) compulsory
syndication of commerce and industry.

If I were Lenin today, I would argue the same. If workers in the third world go
against privatizations to protect their jobs in *state enterprises*, I
automatically support them regardless of what the nationalist bourgeois thinks
or does. We can not allow anti-state bourgeois solutions, Pino.Beleive me, I am
saying this as a non "state cap" person!  The purpose is to weaken the private
capital by any means available untill we totally surrender them..  Did not Marx
say in the Manifesto "settle accounts with your own bourgeoise first"! If we
give a leninist reading of this,  *our bourgeoisie* is a comprador bourgeoisie
in an *imperialist context*!

revoutionary au revoir


Julio Pino wrote:

> >Mine and Gary et al: With all due respect to V.I., I do not all agree that
> >Lenin promoted a non-capitalist road to modernity.While the Bolsheviks
> >carried out the "expropriation of the expropriators" and collectivized the
> >means of production, they did not do away with the relations between labor
> >and management---did not revolutionize relations INSIDE the factories and
> >collective farms.I know this is a huge subject, but I'd like us to consider
> >what I see as the errors of the Bolsheviks in this regard.For i have come
> >to the conclusion that the Bolsheviks were essentially trying to build
> >socialism using capitalist methods, wittingly or unwillingly.

> This was the
> "mechanistic Marxism" they should have rejected, and which would later be
> criticized by Che and Mao.
> 1. I believe it was wrong (although understandable) to turn the labor
> unions into "armies of the proletariat", with the discipline that comes
> with being drafted into an army.
> 2.The introduction of Taylorism into the USRR, much praised by Lenin, was
> done without considering how such "scientific" practice would strengthen
> the hand of factory managers.
> 3. Borrowing from the production techniques of Ford in automobiles or
> Rockefeller in Petroleum production likewise reintroduced large gaps in
> wages and distanced workers from their "Red Bosses."
> I do not now nor have I ever ben a "state-cap" fellow. The USSR after 1917
> was a transitional society, moving towards socialism but still marked
> deeply by capitalist property relations. But I will sset that the
> Bolsheviks(and by this I include Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin)took steps
> that, however necessary for short survival, ultimately resulted in the
> political marginalization of the working class. In other words, it did not
> start with Stalin, nor can Stalinism be blamed solely on the capitalist
> encirclement of the USSR.
> Comradely,
> Julio Cesar
> 1) Sure, we need to promote a non-capitalist modernity.
> >2) Regarding Lenin, I understand what you mean, though I want to be fair
> to him. My
> >reading of him is that he still wanted to promote a non-capialist
> modernity. I
> >would not argue that soviet socialism, at least in Lenin's time, aimed to
> >facilitate a progress of capitalist modernization. On the contrary, Lenin
> >questioned the most vulgar/eurocentric versions of Marxism, when he aimed
> to show
> >that a "backward country" like Russia could do a revolution. Lenin was the
> first
> >who questioned the mechanistic theory of historical stages common among
> vulgar
> >materialists. This version of marxism saw socialism as the end result of
> capitalist
> >modernization, which aimed at passively waiting for the revolutuion to
> take place
> >untill the material circumstances mature.  Whereas European marxists were
> still
> >expecting revolution in advanced capitalist countries, Russia proved the
> contrary.
> >a) imperialism b) working class/peasent alliance were the decisive factors
> in the
> >struggle against capitalism.. To a certain extend, Russia broke away with
> >orthodoxy, and Lenin's model of socialism confirmed this development.
> >
> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >--
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >___________________________________________________________
> >


Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222

____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now
Request a CDROM  1-800-333-3633

More information about the Marxism mailing list