[Marxism] Re: Class struggle...

Tom O'Lincoln suarsos at alphalink.com.au
Mon Nov 28 19:05:24 MST 2005


Nick writes:

>>I understood that under the NEP there was some private ownership of
industrial means of production, hence the need for class struggle and
independent unions, as the CPSU resolution Tom quoted called for, as
opposed to the War Communism period of 1918-21.<

The passage does relate to the NEP, but look again at this:

“As long as classes exist, the class struggle is inevitable. In the period
of transition from capitalism to socialism the existence of classes is
inevitable; and the Programme of the Russian Communist Party definitely
states that we are taking only the first steps in the transition from
capitalism to socialism.”

This is clearly about the transition period generally. 

>>Or maybe it was just the *potential* for such ownership and such class
struggle market relations were partially reintroduced, that the resolution
was aimed at?<<

It says class struggle is not just potential but INEVITABLE. Elsewhere
Lenin calls the workers’ state “a bourgeois state without the bourgeoisie”
so there is really no reason to doubt that a strike in a state-owned
enterprise would be class struggle. So it’s not just a matter of the NEP. I
don’t really see why this is so hard for some Fidelistas to accept, it just
seems like basic Marxism to me. But perhaps one barrier is the spectre of
the dreaded Tony Cliff. Nick writes: 

>BTW, the resolution makes clear Lenin and the CPSU had a very 
different conception of what "state capitalism" meant, than Tom.<<

Partly true, but so what. I’m not arguing about the Stalin regime. I’m
arguing about the Lenin period when we all agree the society was a
“workers’ state”. Cliff doesn’t come into it.




More information about the Marxism mailing list