So that's the source of the distorted "The theory of Marx is all-powerful, because it is true" quote? Honestly, I do find disturbing Lenin's own usage of the words "doctrine," "omnipotent," etc.

I also see his mention of "German philosophy" along with "English political economy and French socialism" - the first of which you criticize. I must admit, though, that his placement of philosophy above political economy was quite questionable, even though Marx actually used Hegelian dialectics more than your so-called "Scottish philosophy."

Summarizing some of pre-renegade Kautsky's words...



There is no real "Leninist" party today, given our scattered number. The only folks sharing his revolutionary ideals (besides myself) are, ironically, Leo Uillean and the left-communist folks in the International Communist Current (and our mutual agreement on the need for an international socialist party with national "cells" to replace the current sectarian opportunists). I have stated before on this board that I'm an EX-Trot and an EX-Stalinist (in chronological order).

Good luck (in spite of our continued disagreements)!

They were bureaucrats born out of the degeneration of the October Revolution.. not a new ruling class... They were similar to union bureaucrats.

If they were a "new bourgeois," they wouldn't have given up their state peacefully; because no propertied ruling class ever does or has.

Listen, like I already said, the SEC wanted to implement capitalism too.. just in a different way (at a slower pace, and while keeping the 15 republics together).

Right.. soo then, let's assume this nonsense is true. You said they dressed their "bourgeois state" up in red flags (i.e. pretend it was a workers' state).. why would they do this? To make the workers think they had stake in the state (I'm going on your logic here). So, if they wanted to stay in power of that state, and it came down to a confrontation, why would they tell the workers to stay home, instead of mobilizing them (telling them they needed to defend their state) in order to stay in power??

That's not exactly what happened.. but let's say it was for the sake of argument... Since when do the arm bodies of a bourgeois state go over to another class when not even a shot has been fired?

That would have been like the Cuban military immediately abandoning Batista when the Granma landed, and coming over to the guerrilla's side.

"Besieged"?

Yelstin set up barricades and organized a "countercoup."

The EC didn't do anything to stop him.. and indeed, when Washington made it clear that Yeltsin was there man to lead the capitalist counterrevolution, the EC fell apart.

You're mincing your own words here. You said the bureaucrats in the USSR were the bourgeoisie (the new bourgeoisie that lead the October Revolution). That's what I'm talking about.

So you're arguing that the SEC represented them (the bourgeoisie).

But actually, what you just said was interesting .. you said the SEC "was the.. bourgeoisie." So now a committee of 8 people is a propertied ruling class. Pretty amazing!

Now you're saying the propertied ruling classes under feudalism gave up to the nascent bourgeoisie without a fight?!?

The USSR was not imperialist in any shape or form. You clearly have no understanding of imperialism; but don't feel bad, you're not alone. This is for another thread though (this has come up recently elsewhere, and there was talk via PMs -- from both sides -- about starting a thread on it, maybe that should be done).

You're the one that made a big deal of it being feudal not semi-feudal, so I'll leave it up to you to answer that.

And it's been refuted in extensive detail; by different people, and history itself.

You're applying historical materialism in a mechanical way that Marx would never have. This is the kind of thing that caused Marx to say "I am no Marxist."

Because of uneven development, imperialism, capitalism becoming the dominate social system, and a host of other things, socialist revolutions are possible in the imperialist oppressed countries (and do a great deal to bring the imperialist countries themselves closer to revolution).

I mean even right now, many of the countries that folks would call "third world" are at a level that some of the capitalist countries weren't at when Marx was alive (and he knew revolutions were possible in them then!).

Right.. but Marx didn't completely foresee what imperialism would look like and what effects it would have. Lenin was able to analyze it more thoroughly (not in the least because he was alive when it arrose), and explain its effects.

Don't have time right now, have to run out. I'll come back later with some.

* * *

And there's more than people that say that the USSR have to answer.. if the USSR was already capitalist, and just switched to another form of capitalism, how do you explain things like the unprecedented drop in life expectancy (In 89 life expectancy for males was 64.2. Under Yeltsin it fell to 57). The capitalist ruling class suddenly become super brutal or what?

Suppose hypothetically that the Soviet Union were a worker's state. What's the consequence of this?

Well, it means that Marx and Engels were completely wrong in: The German Ideology, Das Kapital, amongst other works. This goes against simple empirical verification of their work.

Worse, you seriously propose that from a "semi-" (i.e. late) feudal society, that a worker's state could arise. There are a number of inconsistencies with Marx and Engels' writings that need to be reconciled if this were so.

But what makes this difficult is that you also have to explain what Marx and Engels explained, by an elementary correspondence principle of science: when you replace a paradigm that can explain phenomena, the new paradigm has to be reducible to the same or superior explanation.

The Leninist paradigm (or any paradigm that explains the USSR as a "worker's state") has not even attempted to do this. That's really bad for a paradigm to do!

Frankly, there are a number of empirically observed issues which have been so gleefully ignored by CdL and CyM (and to an extent, Hammer -- he is somewhat absolvable since he'd have to read through the previously made points). You three have brushed it aside (consciously dismissing it as "academic" or tacitly) but that really avoids the whole issue.

This is worst of all, as you don't even give anything to challenge the historical record except unsubstantiated assertions. Being a physicist this is most disappointing as it's like challenging an observation without another observation, rejecting an experiment without another experiment, a sort of refusal to adhere the basic practices of science.
The SEC wanted to maintain the pre-existing bourgeois apparatus. They employed it to defend itself.

There really hasn't been much empirical evidence to challenge this. You have asserted without much evidence that they were going to turn this "worker's state" into a capitalist state whilst preserving the 15 republics and so forth, but this is a little odd.

Why would the SEC possibly want to do this?

From the "worker's state" perspective, it's rather unclear.

From the "state capitalist" perspective, it's the senile ruling class trying to hold together a crumbling state.

Could it possibly be that the workers are neither trained nor equipped to defend such a state, that there was a professional army there to do it in their place?

You have a more serious problem here: with my explanation, it's merely a transition from one caste of bourgeoisie to another; with your explanation, it's the change of mode of productions without the shot of a bullet.

My explanation is basically a relatively peaceful collapse of one government; yours is a complete revolution without a shot fired.

So how do you reconcile this problem? It's a more serious challenge for the proponents of the "worker's state" theory since it seriously proposes a revolution without a bullet going off.

No, it wouldn't be anything like this false analogy.

Proof? You've asserted this unsubstantiated proposition before too, also without proof.

I'm in no way "mincing" my words here, I'm merely reiterating what has all ready been stated to answer certain questions which lead to further questions based on what has been said.

Yes, I didn't say the SEC is a subset of the bourgeoisie but that the bourgeoisie was the SEC.

Oh no, wait, I didn't!

No, I'm saying that the ruling class in late modes of production are senile.

After thinking about this a great deal, the "mystery" of the "1989-91 revolution" is no mystery at all: simply the collapse of a government.

The serious problem arises if we accept the notion that the Soviet Union were a "worker's state"!

How then is this "revolution", the "most peaceful revolution in history", explained?

Well, if you say so

No, it really hasn't. That's the whole point of this thread.

And if different history has "refuted" it thus, why then the hesitation to cite any sources and figures?

Forgive me Marx for I have sinned

A serious problem that arises that is largely ignored by the community that says the USSR was a worker's state is that Marx was wrong and nothing has been formulated to replace his incorrect portions satisfactorily.

A serious challenge is that historical materialism is wrong empirically as well as his economics. What does that leave for him to be right about? Dialectics?!

Perhaps, but this isn't too satisfying an answer as to why capitalism has become the "dominate social system".

Marx conjectured that capitalism would necessarily replace the feudal mode of production for a host of reasons in Das Kapital, vol. I.

Curiously, they seem to mirror the moves of the Soviet mode of production from 1920 to about 1945!

But this is mere coincidence, it doesn't mean that: because the material conditions were remarkably similar to other capitalist revolutions, and the results and method of this revolution being done was remarkably similar to other capitalist revolutions that the Soviet revolution was by any stretch of the imagination a bourgeois one. Or at least that's what the apologists would like me to believe.

So that's the reason why he repeatedly said over and over that worker's revolutions occur in late capitalism <_<

The problem, as I've emphasized before, is that the "effects" that Lenin identified were identified independent of him by Marx and Engels as signs of capitalist development.

That makes it relatively difficult to identify the effects of imperialism, unless you reject a great deal of Marx and Engels.

Since there is no advantage to do so, that makes Lenin's theory of imperialism a bad theory.

IF Lenin's theory made some prediction that Marx and Engels didn't cover, even if Lenin's theory's predictions were wrong, THEN Lenin's theory would have been a better theory as one could objectively say "Ah, this is working just as Lenin said" or "Ah, this isn't going at all according to Lenin's prediction".

Okey dokey.

Did you forget that you are free to live in capitalism if you can afford it?

Since most couldn't afford it, they simply well died.

It is irrelevant to whether the bourgeoisie "have a heart" or not.

You are somewhat right in your contention. However, the sectarian clashes between Trotskyists and Stalinists have made you aware of the subtle yet critical difference between Lenin and Trotsky in some of my threads. The proposal of going from a late feudal society to socialist society was TROTSKY's (permanent revolution), not Lenin's ("revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry").

Again, the genuine "Leninist" paradigm is that the Soviet republic was a "revolutionary-democratic" state from 1917 to 1924. The idea of it being an exclusively "workers' state" is absurd, given the alliance with the peasantry.



This then ties back to my "revolutionary stamocap" thread, and my conversation with a left-communist on this board where he said it isn't really that (given workers' control). October was a revolutionary-democratic revolution, in spite of the "socialist" appellation (contrast this with the bourgeois-democratic February). Nonetheless, contemporary Marxists such as Luxemburg, Lenin, Gramsci, etc. all agreed rightfully that socialist revolution does NOT lead immediately to socialism, with the transitional period in between.



A "revolutionary-democratic" period is a revolutionary compression of Time Points A through C. Conceded: the workers have only partial control in spite of the small-s soviet mechanism (antithesis). On the other hand, you don't have Big Business capitalists with millions and billions of dollars of wealth (thesis). The uncanny synthesis: managers ("coordinators" as per reformist utopian Michael Albert) under a wage/salary system.

The problem that I have with this, as I've stated and tried to emphasize, there is no "correspondence principle" within the Leninist paradigm.

Indeed, there is little reason to suppose that the Marxist paradigm needs to be reformed based on the objections of the Leninist paradigm, based on empirical observation with the tools of Marxism.

The "big contribution" of the Leninist paradigm as a "replacement" for the Marxist one is supposedly the theory of imperialism...which is, as I've repeatedly emphasized, a bad theory.

To complicate manners, there is little reason to rid the tools of Marxism as presented in the given text IF one applies them.

Which returns us to a complete reiteration of my original point.

Well that's great...but that really doesn't challenge a deal of my points (viz. the lack of empiricism).

(And accepting the USSR as a "degenerate worker's state" is still accepting that it was a "worker's state".)

So the common wisdom of the "contemporary Marxists" is that after the revolution there must be capitalism still.

Is this really true?

Based on the historical record of this theory in practice, it appears to fail.

Frankly, post-revolutionary society has to hit the ground running...not crawling.

From day one after the revolution, the workers need to be exercising power...not some group of "baby sitters" that keep the seat of power warm!

Where did I mention "baby sitters" when I mentioned the tricameral structure of workers' control (communal councils, soviets, and factory committees)? <_<

THAT was the reason why the aforementioned left-communist said that what I called "revolutionary stamocap" isn't really stamocap at all, but already DP!

As for your case against the vanguard party, answer this: what about companies who anticipate long-term future demand and innovate new products that are bought by consumers? Workers cannot spontaneously revolt (refer to Luxemburg's spontaneity vs. organization dialectic), nor can there be a Blanquist solution (which you so erroneously "link" to the RSDLP(B)). Say's Law was absurd in an economic sphere full of profits (his equilibrium law being based on zero-profits), but in the non-profitable socio-political sphere, "supply creates its own demand": hence revolutionary theory.

So what is the dictatorship of the proletariat, then, if Marx himself did not deem it to be socialist? <_<

I would call State Capitalist economically the same as fascist (the United states would be incuded in this with the military-industrial complex), where the Capitalists and the State work together to achieve each others aims.

The USSR, and the states that followed that model ARE socialist, the existence Capital is not the essence of Capitalism, Capital can be anything from $100 to a factory to a computer, its just things you use in production, Capitalism is about private property and the market system (which includes the labor market). Socialism (braodly) is a society who's economy runs on Social needs rather than Profit, under those concepts the USSR could be called Socialist because there was no profit motive, and the state claimed to be running things for the good of the Society. I don't think its genuine, in the same way the United States is'nt a genuine Democracy, but that does'nt make the United States a Dictatorship.

This is, again, where my bias as a physicist presents itself and - dealing with the presentation of an abstract thesis - desperately look for some empirical experiment.

Looking to the USSR, this really has not been the case of "worker's councils" running the show. Nor has it happened in China.

IT sounds very appealing in theory, and if it ever happened in practice I would support it...but all too often Leninists are quick to call something "run by workers' councils".

The main point that I make does not seem to be contested by you in theory that the worker's should run the show after the revolution; but you suggest allowing "capitalism without the capitalists" to be the method...as though this couldn't possibly have the material conditions of capitalism and thus a reincarnation of class society!

To ignore the material conditions created by "capitalism without the capitalists" is to ignore Marx's work, which would be a rather silly thing to do after paying so much attention to it.
What about them?

Why?

It's not as though everyone wakes up one day and says "Capitalism is shit" and then "spontaneously" overthrows capitalism.

Revolutions occur, as any event in material reality, based on the material conditions at that time. It is not by mere "chance" that revolutions occur.

One rather disturbing underlying assumption is that "The workers are sheep" and thus "incapable" of emancipating themselves.

If you hold such a position, why not become a capitalist? Such a position allows for a meritocratic view of society, the sheep sink to the bottom whereas the wolves rise to the top.

There is - in practice - little difference between a bourgeois politician "shepherd" and a communist "shepherd".

Such a supposition seems reactionary in character.

Say's Law is absurd in every sphere.

The problem is that it's a linear "Law", and linearity is all too often a mere approximation to a better approximation (there are countless examples of this).

Well, in the most literal sense, Marx clearly meant to draw a comparison to "bourgeois democracy" - the dictatorship of the capitalist class.

Things get a little tricky when we realize that the state is simply the organ of class rule, but after the revolution the aim is to abolish classes.

So is the "dictatorship of the proletariat" a state or not?! Well "sort of" but "not really".

That is, however, the subject for a completely different topic.

Ever heard of "hegemony" and "counter-hegemony" before?

Referring to Gramsci's theory, I assume (although it has been used before by Lenin and others)?

Gramsci's work has always struck me as having a strong idealist slant...as though he took bits and pieces of Marx and decoupled it from reality.

One of the more serious problems with it is that Gramsci had associated the term "hegemony" with "intellectual and moral leadership" of a "historic bloc" of classes...Gramsci thought this working class would be capable of establish a new state.

This reeks of idealism, as though the working class had the magical power to ignore material conditions!

Not even the "iron discipline" of the Bolsheviks could defy material reality!

Largely due to the commonly ignored reason: no amount of idealism, disciple, etc. can overturn the material conditions given to us by history.

Further, my points still hold: if you genuinely hold such a position, why not become a capitalist?

If the workers were truly sheep, then don't they deserve to be slaughtered...what else are sheep good for?!

Frankly, no amount of idealism could justify such a reactionary position.

^^^ I'm not saying that workers are incapable of emancipating themselves. I'm saying that, in the increasingly dumbed-down consumer society, they are increasingly incapable of educating themselves (lack of free time, class morale/motivation, as well as dumbed-down media matters). The international vanguard party is dedicated to this education, as well as professional revolution strategy.

[The latter because I can't stomach the idea of a revolution implementing Mao's human-wave crap, which goes right back to your "deserve to be slaughtered" comments. Without professional strategy during the revolution, the "slaughtering of sheep" which you so condemn WILL occur.]

It is true that he wasn't a materialist, and that the "historic bloc of classes" may resemble too much Stalin's "non-antagonistic classes" crap, but you really should read up Jonathan Joseph's Lenin's Concept of Hegemony.

People are now completely incapable of learning without being held by the hand by the vanguard?

Well, the first question that I must ask is: is this true?

The answer is no. Rather anti-climactic of a response, isn't it?

First, I suppose one might argue that workers are "incapable" of "taking the initiative" to educate themselves.

Well, that's a nice assertion (there have been plenty made defending the USSR as a worker's state thus far, the topic of conversation supposedly; all of which have no evidence backing them up)...but where's the proof?

As though part of the brain ceases to function when one enters the proletarian class

And even more comical, only the "vanguard" could make it work again!



Perhaps what is meant is that there is no motivation for a prole to learn...but even then there are some serious issues with this. For example, motivation is completely irrelevant to learning; or better yet people are naturally curious and they will "learn" if by nook or by crook.

But would the "vanguard" instill motivation to learn? Again, no. No one can "force" us to learn anything we don't wish, an elite "iron-disciplined" "vanguard" wouldn't change anything.

Which leaves us either accepting the proposition that the workers are sheep and need to be led to their emancipation by a "vanguard", OR the workers are not sheep and fully capable of emancipating themselves with the right material conditions (of course).

I'll look into it when I have the time.

^^^ Read my corrective elaborations above. Also, consider the vacillating European worker between far-left and far-right parties (the need for a NON-parliamentary vanguard for an anti-fascist front, among MANY other things). <_<

Did you read my response on its "revolutionary-democratic" nature as compared to a pure "workers' state"? <_<

Well, the question that immediately presents itself is: Does this change anything?

Yet another question with the answer No!

There are three main points made which ought to be inspected for their respective validity here: "lack of free time, class morale/motivation, as well as dumbed-down media matters."

How severe is this "lack of time"?

Working in the US alone for simplicity (this can be used in Europe or anywhere else, but the US presents its statistics readily), suppose we have a prole household vie for at least the poverty level (2006 Definitions of Poverty Level for Households).

One person working minimum wage, 9 to 5, 5 days a week. That's an 8 hour work day, 40 hour work week, 2080 hours worked per year. At $6 per hour, that's $12480 per year...well above the poverty level for one person.

For a family of two working parents making minimum wage, working 9 to 5, 5 days a week, $6 per hour. That's simply twice the figure all ready calculated, $24960 per year. This is roughly enough to support five people at poverty level.

Supposing a worker sleeps 8 hours a day, there are 8 hours a day that are unaccounted for. In 8 hours a day, with an adequate supply of books, one can learn a great deal in a few years.

So this "lack of time" doesn't seem to be a great problem.

Class Morale/Motivation...meaning?

This sounds like Class Consciousness, but I don't really know what is meant by the term. If it is class consciousness, how the hell does that have to interfere with educating one's self?

Last, but certainly not least, the "dumbed down media" point.

How does this exactly prevent a worker educating herself? It would obviously interfere with how she formulates her opinion a bit...but preventing her from educating herself all together?!

This seems a bit extreme!

And empirically questionable to say the least! It does however affect how the prole's consciousness is...e.g. Fox news cannot be anything other than a reactionary influence, mirroring the thoughts of the ruling class of course.

But does it prevent or increase difficulties in a worker educating herself?

How could it?!

That is rather unclear how it renders a worker "incapable" of educating herself! Perhaps you could elaborate?

If you've edited it into one of your posts after I've replied to it, then probably not.

^^^ Don't trust government stats. Rentals costs are spiralling, not to mention wasted payroll taxes and food costs. Most (if not all) workers near poverty can't save. Heck, even petit-bourgeois folks (like myself and most other "great" socialist revolutionaries) can't save enough of their money with the abnormally low interest rates.

If only you were correct (really, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, instead together laying the building blocks for socialism).

Since you referred to women, ever considered the cynical opinions behind women's rights and dropping mandatory retirement? That expands the workforce, but increases alienation and decreases free time for education (work, chores, sleep, taking care of kids, etc.).

[Mind you, the idea of being against such progressive measures is absurd.]

Besides, more and more education is geared towards "practical" purposes (ie, getting a job in the field of your study, either while studying or upon getting your degree). That knocks off time to gain "class consciousness."



Now, considering my other responses:

The last part of my "revolutionary-democratic" remarks:

A "revolutionary-democratic" period is a revolutionary compression of Time Points A through C. Conceded: the workers have only partial control in spite of the small-s soviet mechanism (antithesis). On the other hand, you don't have Big Business capitalists with millions and billions of dollars of wealth (thesis). The uncanny synthesis: managers ("coordinators" as per reformist utopian Michael Albert) under a wage/salary system.

My point had no relevance as to whether a worker "saves money" or not, only to the fact that a fellow making minimum wage makes enough to survive with time enough to read 8 hours a day (supposing he reads all 8 hours!).

Eh? Am I right that you mean class consciousness or not?!

<_< Traditionally since the 1960s "She" is read as "He or she", it's not specifically targeting women as more susceptible than men to the falsities of the media.

<_< I seem to recall something Mark Twain once said: I never let schooling get in the way of my education!

When I speak of education, I don't mean enrolling in courses. Far from it!

Speaking from experience, a great deal of my (indeed my sole) education has been from reading books alone.

And hell, if I could do that, anyone could do it. (And I did it with math and physics, with no knowledge of physics and only knowledge of algebra! )

You'd be surprised what you can learn from simply reading a book.

What the hell are you talking about?

And I think you switched up the "thesis" and "antithesis" (although how you assign such qualities to propositions is simply little more than a priori word games <_<).

Naturally, I reject your reasoning behind your (for lack of a better word) proof, and your proof itself outright.

I reject your conclusion on empirical principles that it didn't work out before, why should we expect the same thing to work?

As for the theoretical reasons, it doesn't really seem to change the material conditions of society by surgically removing a class. The class would simply "reincarnate" since the material conditions allow for its regeneration.

Yep.



To be fair, I read analytical articles on the Internet, and was a big buff for WWII documentaries (which go beyond the tripe of History 12, which I was spared the misery of taking).



Not at all. Chronologically speaking, Big Business (thesis) comes before the revolutionary-democratic soviet mechanism (antithesis), and both lead to a synthesis of managers.

Of course, in the modern era, where we've gone past primitive accumulation, "revolutionary democracy" isn't needed anymore; just straight socialist revolution (because managers now share the same class interests of Big Business).

I still fail to see how class consciousness could possibly affect intelligence.

See? It's nothing impossible, as you know from experience.

There is still that problem of identifying the properties of propositions which make them a thesis, how to derive from a given proposition an antithesis, and how to combine a thesis proposition and an antithesis proposition into a synthesis proposition.

What's really bad is that no two dialecticians can reproduce the same results

It's like Feng Shui in many respects: non-reproducible results, metaphysical word-game "reasoning", hand-wavy proofs, etc.

Frankly, why not just ditch the bullocks?! That would be the more revolutionary approach to things!

Which begs the question what's the point?

For pre-capitalist modes of production to magically jump to socialism?! Things don't work that way!

History has shown things to not work this way!

It turns out, much to the dislike of Leninists, Marx was right!

Which would mean that this is little more than a glorified bourgeois-industrialization period for a capitalist mode of production.

Such is life.

^^^ Um, you're falling for the same clap-trap that liberals fall for: the alleged intention to skip capitalism. <_<

If Lenin had turned to Trotsky's "permanent revolution," then and only then would you and they have a point. But no - "revolutionary-democratic" tasks first (capitalism less the Big Business capitalists PLUS more managerial power), while the socialist tasks come MUCH later (which was what he said).

No, I'm not, allow me to elucidate.

We both can agree (I hope) that capitalism precedes communism.

"Stamocap" is undoubtedly capitalism...Russia, from the figures, was still feudal with 80% of its population peasantry and so forth.

Speaking strictly from an empirical view on history, that was going to happen.

I reiterate: there would be NO WAY to go from pre-capitalist modes of production to sociailism.

That's why the USSR was capitalist.

Some might like to argue that it went from a "stamocap" to a "socialism" to a "degenerate workers' state" which is rather comical...it was the most peaceful series of revolutions ever in history where the ruling class simply handed over the reigns of power and the means of production!

Which would then contradict Marxist theory.

Thus it seems to me that the whole notion of "stamocap" is antiquated for pre-capitalist modes of production to "modernize" to relatively newer standards of living.

That's how it's been used historically.

Or else empiricism (and/or Marx) is wrong, which is what our dear friends CdL and CyM would like. Being a scientist, I refuse to let go of empiricism; and being a Marxist, there is little reason to give up Marxist theory.

That is what I meant.