From: batcom-AT-poboxes.com
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:41:44 +0100
Subject: Re: M-TH: Re: AUT: Stalin/Trotsky


At 15.54 15/11/98 +0000, Jim H. wrote:
>
>

>However, the point of principle arises in the attitude to NEP. Lenin,
>Preobrazhensky and Trotsky all knew that the compromise with the market
>principle would introduce disruptive forces into soviet society. The
>market was more than a means of exchanging produce between town and
>market, it was the basis of another social class of capitalists, whose
>interests would be hostile to the soviet system. 

Here, I do agree. But there's a key problem: Lenin, Preobrajensky and
Trotsky weere quite clear about the role of this compromise: to resist
(economically, eating enough) until the revolutionary upsurges in other
countries, especially in Germany, so that a relief could arrive in order to
go further towards socialisation. An here, again lies the problem: is the
"state industry" which P. in New economics talk about the "socialist camp"?
In this book, as in other texts of the period (Bucharin and even Lenin) an
easy identification is made: yes, state industry= socialist industry. And
that's wrong, absolutely wrong.
It would have been a minor problem if the revolutionary process
(internationaly) had gone forward, but in the actual conditions that deep
confusion paved the way to the Trotsky's defeat and... the P.'s murder,
without any safeness for the communist, revolutionary idea of socialism.
Trotsky was killed while he too was saying that "anyway Russia is
socialist" and millions of proletarians in the world looked at Russia as
the socialist homeland, while it was the state capitalism homeland. A
Second World War, the second imperialistic war, has been fought in the name
of socialism/democracy against nazifascism; and the "communist" thought was
that this war is for.. an idea ( Fanny attitude for selfcalled marxists) 
Nowadays we see many of the trotskists (oh, how many they are) talking
about the "Russia enigma", interrogating themselves on what to think about
Russia's history and fall. And we see the most anti-communist anarchists
upsurge with their idealistic, anti-party approach.
Marxism survived for decays in the Internationalists' cellars, blamed by
all for beeing "anti-communist" (anti-Russia), for saying strange, "absurd"
things like "statisation is not socialisation"; "statisation in itself is
still a capitalist measure", "Russia is a capitalist state and in this
epoch for its size, is the second imperialistic centre with/against the
western one."
Now marxism is getting out the cellars and asserting itself as the only
serious reply to stalinism, the anti-communist campaign and the need to
rebuild a communist perspective.
Rev greetings
m.jr
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Battaglia comunista  
Italian member of the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party
cas.post. 1753, 20101 Milano Italy
web site: http://www.ibrp.org
e-mail: batcom-AT-poboxes.com
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---