[Marxism] writings of trotsky on second chinese revolution

Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com
Fri Mar 27 10:00:34 MDT 2009




Comment
 
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  
historical creature. 
 
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 
property holder. 
 
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. 
 
WL. 



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.
.
http://new-wave-nw.blogspot.com/search/label/Trotsky%20on%20China

--  
New Wave
new-wave-nw.blogspot.com
 
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)




More information about the Marxism mailing list