Date: Wed, 10 Aug 1994 13:55:43 +0700 From: djones-AT-uclink.berkeley.edu (donna jones) Subject: Stalinism I agree with Philip that I too simply reduced anti-Marxian socialism to a petty-bourgeois project. And no doubt bolshevism and fascism must be differentiated. I must admit that my post was polemical. In attempting to save Marxism from Stalinism, we may only deliver Marxism to some other non-proletarian project. If we are to claim that Bolshevism was an anti-proletarian deviation from Marxism (and I understand that such a claim is doubted by both the right and bolshevists), then is there anything we can learn that will be of use in militating against such a deviation in the imperialist countries? Mattick Sr's point is simply that bolshevism, fascism and many other forms of state capitalism (often calling themselves marxist) can all be especially attractive to a threatened petty bourgeoisie (especially once we understand how monopoly capital attempts to stave off the fall in the average rate of profit through a transfer of value via the circulation process from small capitals--on this see, William J. Blake, 1939, p. 510 and Bennet Harrison's last book for some evidence in a non-marxian framework, very eclectic framework). I was hoping that this intervention would check against our complete externalization of the bolshevik threat; that is, we could understand totalitarian forms of state capitalism as not only attractive to, say, elites in an undercapitalized country but also, more generally, to non-proletarian classes vying for power when capitalism cannot preserve itself or develop in laissez-faire form. One last point: it has been disappointing that in the critiques of bolshevism that have been posted, no one has made mention of Mao's critique of Soviet Economics. Does Maoism present a revolutionary path out of imperial domination and bolshevik centralization? d jones
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005