[Marxism] Class nature of Chinese state, and class nature
nmgoro at gmail.com
Sat Oct 27 09:26:51 MDT 2007
2007/10/26, Anthony Boynton <northbogota at yahoo.com>:
> Hi everybody: The conversation about China is interesting, but it raises some questions that I have been thinking about for a long time, and have not brought up on this list.
> The category "workers state" which is often used on this list, and which descends from Trotsky's writings, and which was used in discussion in the Third International...does not seem to describe anything that ever was very real, or at least not ever very precisely defined. Plus it excludes some other interesting phenomena.
> I think we might want to start talking about "revolutionary states", rather than workers' states.
> The Soviet Union was, and China, Viet Nam, Cuba, Korea, and Venezuela, ARE revolutionary states. So was Mexico after 1910. So was France until the defeat of Napolean.
> Social revolutions, by workers and other oppressed people, create revolutionary states. The working class does not always, or even usually, lead in these process despite the wishful thinking of most Marxists including Marx. Russia in 1917 was the exception, not the rule. At least until now.
Yes, I agree with Anthony!
May I add Peronist Argentina (1945-55) to the list, or it hurts the
feelings of too many people, just because it was not "socialist"? And
what with Soekarno´s Indonesia, Nasser´s Egypt (better still his
attempt at a United Arab Republic), etc.?
Revolutions are not following the predicted path. But capitalism, the
global system, requires remotion. So others take the stead of the
proposed historic subject. And they give their own scent to the
revolutions against imperialism (that is, against capitalism as a
global system). Some day, in the future, when we are lucky enough to
see the workers in Western Europe, USAmerica and Japan take the power
of their respective countries, we shall have "workers states".
As to the Soviet example, one would even wonder whether the "workers
state" was not a surrogate for a more loosely defined "revolutionary
state". The violence of bureaucratic rule itself should make all of us
think whether Stalinism, that supreme evil for any Trotskyist or
Trotskyist-drilled Marxist, was not the demonstration of this rather
than just and only a deviation from Marxism in the ruling party.
Wasn´t Russian backwardness expressed in that necessity of a policeman
turned ruler? And if so, which was the material support for that
state? The State itself? Hmmmm.
Anyway, since this may slip into a fruitless and futile Stalin-Trotsky
debate, this is where I stop. It is Russians who must make their own
history and learn from it. When a Stalin-Trotsky debate, a serious S-T
debate, arises in Russia, then we shall be witnessing the Aurora of a
new socialist revolution there. For the time being, this does not seem
to be taking place. Anybody privy?.
More information about the Marxism