[Marxism] writings of trotsky on second chinese revolution
Waistline2 at aol.com
Waistline2 at aol.com
Fri Mar 27 10:00:34 MDT 2009
Why not add something new to the dialogue, rather than staying at the level
of discussion of 60 years ago?
This issue of the bureaucracy is extremely complex and has been grappled
with in practical terms by at least three generations of communists. My premise
is this: it is impossible to eliminate bureaucracy, through subjective
revolutionary agency or by political fiat or furious struggle. The two aspects of
the bureaucracy as bureaucracy, making its elimination practically impossible
as a goal, is its expression/reality as the power of the state and its roots
in the value relations.
The elimination of the bureaucracy is predicated upon the withering away of
the state and the withering away of the value relations. In my opinion, this
approach is distinct and very different within American Marxism.
Bureaucratism, as it infest the flesh and the revolutionary organs of power
is to be resisted and activity fought, understanding that one is face with a
One cannot struggle against the bureaucracy with any chance of eliminating
it, by struggling against the bureaucracy. One cannot struggle against
unemployment, with any chance of eliminating it, by struggling against
unemployment. One cannot struggle against the value relations, with any chance of
eliminating it, by struggling against the value relation. In fact one cannot
struggle against capitalism by struggling against capitalism.
These problems have to be attacked from another route. The struggle against
capital cannot be won in the economic structure of society, but rather the
political and ideological sphere.
The vision has to be based on that, which gave rise to bureaucracy; that
which gave rise to unemployment and the value relation. Consequently, every
generation of communist face ideological and material boundaries. One can be
consistent in all these struggles in different ways. For instance, communists
cannot struggle for peace and hope to be successful by struggling for peace,
although the peace movement as a bourgeois current is very important. It is
always important to recruit peace activists within the orbit of communism and
Marxism. Modern militarization grows out of the bourgeois property relations as
a direct response to the anarchy of production and the falling rate of
profit, which makes investment into military production a high profit center.
Without question militarization is necessary for the protection of the bourgeois
system but there are economic laws driving military production as an
expression of the value relations.
Every question is posed and viewed from the standpoint - (through the lens),
of the value relations as it operates in real time rather than the general
category of private property.
I most certainly agree, theoretically, that for the elimination of
bureaucracy “all forms of private property- capitalist or pre-capitalist, on a massive
scale,” is necessary. The idea that such elimination was possible in the
Soviet Union in the 1920’s and 1930’s runs counter to all the laws of
development of the industrial system and the architecture of its administration. In
the Soviet Union the state was the property holder because during the rising
curve of the industrial system, the working class cannot administer society
production on the basis of its spontaneous self organization. First a
nationwide system of communications and deployment of labor has to be created or an
infrastructure to actualize the authority of the workers as a class. A
nationwide system that can “see” the entire field of play is needed to set targets
and goals. Such a nationwide infrastructure has to be built and regulated as
government agencies. The autonomous nature of Soviets - the armed workers, is
not sufficient to create and administer a nationwide industrial
infrastructure. At best the Soviets can only actualize the state authority as the
In a country like America, that long ago developed its nationwide industrial
infrastructure, we can pose the historical question of the bureaucracy,
different from how it appear to the combatants in say 2009 Nepal, 1949 China or
1930‘s Soviet Union. In America we are dealing directly with the value
relation. We are challenged to reformulate all historical questions on the basis of
our stage of development and experience as value producers.
In a message dated 3/27/2009 10:43:37 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
new.wave.nw at gmail.com writes:
A must for those who are really interested to know about the story of
Chinese Revolution, different than that propagated through ofifcial channels
of Stalinist and Maoist bureaucracies.
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or
More information about the Marxism