Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:38:52 +0000
From: Gerry Downing <gerry-AT-gerryd.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: M-G: What is Stalinism,Rolf?


I take it this the the Andy Blunden of the old IC who went back to Aus.
Vary good post. If he is still around I would not mind exchanging some
e-mails with him on current orientation. He did, along with many others,
make a sincere and not unsuccessful attempt to deal with the legacy of
Healyism. Where has he ended up now?

Gerry Downing

In message <199712110150.UAA06995-AT-ren.globecomm.net>, "Liam R.Flynn"
<trinity-AT-hot-shot.com> writes
>
>                   Well Rolf,yes,no,maybe?
>
>
>
>.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
>What is Stalinism?
>> A very diverse range of politics is subsumed under the heading of
>=91Stalinism=92.
>>
>> For instance, between 1933 and 1939 Stalinism moved from the extreme
>left to the extreme right of the workers=92 movement. In 1933 they
>denounced the reformists as a "wing of fascism"; in 1939 they signed a
>pact with Hitler "in the interests of world peace".
>>
>> From 1923-1928, Stalin advocated "socialism at a snail=92s pace", but in
>1928 the USSR set out to "catch up and overtake" the West in the
>shortest possible time.
>> Before 1934, the Stalinists in the capitalist countries set up "red
>> unions" in opposition to the mass trade unions. After 1934, they not
>>  only joined the mainstream unions, but called for a "popular front"
>>  with the "national bourgeoisie".
>> Stalinism is not so much a political tendency but the politics of a
>> social stratum, together with those who are tied politically to that
>>  social stratum. This stratum is the bureaucracy of the workers=92
>> state.
>>
>> An individual member of the apparatus of a workers=92 state may or not
>>  express the specific social interests of that apparatus. Trotsky
>> for instance was a senior official of the Soviet state from 1917 to
>> 1927. But, all his life he was a political leader of the working
>> class and an implacable opponent of the bureaucracy. Thus, it is
>> possible to be both a member of the workers=92 bureaucracy and a
>> leader of the working class and political opponent of the bureaucracy.
>>
>>
>> Nevertheless, it can be seen that the apparatus has social interests
>>  that are distinct from those of the social class it serves.
>> Consequently, to live in such a bureaucracy implies social pressures
>>  which act upon every individual. Stalinism arose within the Soviet
>> state when sections of the bureaucracy began to express their own
>> interests, against those of the working class which had created the
>> state in order to serve its interests.
>>
>> The history of the Russian Revolution cannot leave any doubt but
>> that the working class and no other had created the Soviet state.
>> But does that fact alone guarantee that the Soviet state would serve
>>  the working class and it alone?
>>
>> All social classes endeavour to influence the state apparatus in the
>direction of their own interests, and find within the state apparatus
>individuals, groups and factions which express their social interests.
>The bourgeoisie has always been able to find those within the apparatus
>of the workers=92 state who will serve its interests.
>>
>> Thus, in order to understand the politics of the workers=92 state
>bureaucracy two issues have to be considered: what is the social nature
>of the state itself (its origins, its relation to other classes and to
>production)? and what is the social nature and composition and political
> profile of the officials holding office within the state, and the
>social pressures acting upon them?
>>
>> During the latter part of his life Trotsky fought many political
>battles against those who characterised the Soviet Union as a capitalist
> state.. [63] In State and Revolution, written in September-October 1917,
> Lenin clearly and unambiguously explained that the objective of the
>working class in taking state power was to build an instrument of
>violence for the repression of the capitalist class. The Red Army was
>the essence of that state. Political relations within the working class,
> and the relations between its different strata and the bureaucracy are
>another question.
>>
>> The bureaucracy of any state has its own independent aspirations.
>> Effectively restricting these aspirations is a problem which depends
>>  upon the strength of the ruling class and the balance of forces
>> between it and other classes.
>>
>> The state bureaucracy does not have unqualified freedom of action. Its
>power derives from holding office within a state, a particular state.
>The bureaucracy is obliged to make sure not to bring about the actual
>overthrow of the state, since in this instance they would lose the very
>basis of their own social power.
>>
>> It is this contradiction between social interests affecting the
>bureaucracy which is responsible for the zig-zagging of the Soviet
>bureaucracy. It is often referred to as the =91dual nature=92 of the workers
>=92state. For instance, Stalin=92s policy up to 1928 threatened the
>destruction of the workers=92 state through a counter-revolution based on
>the petit-bourgeoisie and rich peasants. Such a counter-revolution would
> have meant Stalin=92s death just as much as it would have destroyed the
>foundation of workers=92 power. At a certain point, Stalin had to make an
>about-face.
>>
>> These questions concerning the problems of development of an isolated
>workers state were problems that had never previously confronted the
>socialist movement. The Russian Revolution was the first to give birth
>to a proletarian state that survived to live within the imperialist
>world. Thus it gave the world not only the original =91model=92 for
>socialist revolution, but a new social strata, the workers=92 state
>bureaucracy and the politics of that stratum, Stalinism.
>>
>> Since the workers=92 movement had never been practically confronted
>> with this problem prior to 1923, the political and theoretical
>> foundations of the struggle against Stalinism were laid by the
>> movement which fought against Stalinism, namely, Trotskyism.
>>
>> It would be quite wrong to attempt to understand Stalinism simply in
>>  terms of a problem within the working class or within the socialist
>>  movement. The political problems which confronted the Soviet
>> working class in the 1920s and 1930s were not of their own making.
>> They arose as a result of the defeat of the European revolution and
>> the isolation of the Soviet workers=92 in a backward, peasant-dominated
>>  country.
>> Therefore, this analysis could be summed up by saying that Stalinism
>> is the expression of the pressure of imperialism within the workers=92
>>  state. The Stalinist bureaucracy is the representative of
>> imperialism within the workers=92 state. This should not be understood
>>  in the =91conspiratorial=92 sense, but in the social sense, of course.
>>
>> On the other hand, it is equally important to recognise that no matter
>how reactionary it may become like reformism, Stalinism remains a
>tendency within the working class. Although Stalinism represents a
>response to the pressure of the capitalist class, it is manifested as a
>tendency within the working class.
>>
>> This distinction is important when we consider how a struggle
>> against Stalinism should be conducted within the workers movement.
>>
>> For instance, the struggle against Stalinism and Social Democracy which
>Trotsky conducted in Germany in 1931-33 was based on the call for a
>United Front. Trotsky recognised that both the reformists and the
>Stalinists were tendencies within the German working class. Above all
>the German workers needed unity of their own ranks in order to fight
>Fascism. This meant uniting all working class parties, while facilitating
> the political struggle between them over a common program of struggle.
>>
>> The Stalinist policy of treating the reformist workers as fascist
>> agents was just as erroneous as would be a policy of labelling the
>> Stalinists as agents of "soviet imperialism".
>>
>> On the other hand, the "popular front" policy of Stalinism was based on
> the concept of "progressive" policies without regard to social class.
>It meant splitting the working class (denouncing as an "agents
>provocateur" any worker who advocated socialist policies) and "uniting"
>the working class with "progressive" elements of the bourgeois class.
>{Andy Blunden}
>
>
>                                                       Liam R.Flynn
>                                                  liam-AT-stones.com
>                                                       ICQ*5031073
>                     NEC/EUROPE/INTERNET*WIRELESS SERVICE////
>                         Internet Wireless Broadcast/to=liam-AT-stones.com
>                                 [information&internet:without a modem]
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Gerry Downing


     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---