[Marxism] Re: treacherous and bourgeois regime

rrubinelli rrubinelli at earthlink.net
Mon Jan 30 20:21:31 MST 2006


Comrade Shannon, with whom I am in agreement in regards to Bolivia,
interprets FF with whom, I am proud to say, I am almost never in
agreement, regarding Leon Trotsky to the good forturne of the former,
FF, and the misfortune of the latter, LT.  To wit, Brian says:


"However, if I may be allowed to reinterpret Fred—in truth I am
stating a view that I have come to recently—historically it would not
have been necessary or even wise to adopt Trotsky's views as the main
line of a political party or faction at that time in history."


Excuse me, not necessary or wise?  Fortunately the workers of Petrograd
didn't know Fred, but knew Leon and were wise enough to elect the latter
as president of their soviet, not just once, but twice, and on the basis
of what?  On the basis of the latter's, Leon's, articulation of the
tasks, the necessities, the class agents of the coming, and here it is
right now, Russian Revolution.

Lenin's demarcation was not sufficient.  It was totally inadequate as
the Bolshevik leadership proved prior to Lenin's return, and even
afterwards.

So... let's get to it:

The debate in the RSDLP concerning the coming Russian Revolution was a
debate based on class struggle vs. class collaboration:  it was phrased
in terms imprecise, awkward, excruciatingly exact depending on the
analysis being presented.

The question at the fore was:  Will the Russian proletariat, by
necessity, have to submit, to a long period of classical capitalist
development, before it, the working class, and it, the material
conditions for it, the working classes assumption of power, is on the
agenda.

One, or maybe two views, said yes, absolutely, or maybe that's one yes
absolutely, and one yes maybe with provisions-- the latter being Lenin's
awkward construction, summed up in perhaps the most awkward theoretical
construction of all times:  "the democratic-dictatorship of the
proletariat and peasantry."  One view, or maybe two if you include
Parvus, said, The opposing "theories" are formalistic constructions,
substituting an abstract idealist philosophy of stages of social
development for the real material history of Russian society and economy
as it is today in the world and the world markets.

One or two, if you include Parvus, found the uneven and combined
development, the advancement and backwardness of Russia, the advanced
backwardness, the product of the contradictions of capitalism, between
means and relations, between property and labor; contradictions that
ensured the inability of capitalism, the inadequacy of the bourgeoisie
to those tasks thought to belong to emerging capitalism, and an emerging
bourgeoisie.

The brief existence of the liberal-democratic government in 1917, which
was in no way shape or form, a "stage"  a "phase" of the revolution in
that it had absolutely no economic program; was not able to accomplish a
single task historically associated with emerging, liberal, expanding
capitalism,  proved part of Trotsky's theory.  The triumph of the
soviets proved the  other part.


That FF, or JB, or WL find Trotsky's analysis mistaken, inadequate,
inconsequential, or not so different from Lenin's prior to April 1917,
is simply a critique of their own misunderstanding of the concrete
determinants of  uneven and combined development, means and relations of
production, and continuous, telescoped, revolution.

One doesn't have to be a Trotskyist to apprehend, and reconstruct, the
significance of this international grounding of local, national
revolutions, but one cannot be a Marxist and pretend that the
international basis for local, national, proletarian struggles is
invalid; that the bourgeoisie in less-developed countries have anything
to contribute to the struggle for social development and human
emancipation, except their owns rapid demise.


rr




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian Shannon" <brian_shannon at verizon.net>
To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:08 PM
Subject: [Marxism] Re: treacherous and bourgeois regime







More information about the Marxism mailing list