Democracy and the Theory of Permanent Revolution

[acerb45666555]

the misuse of power can affect any idealistic endevour. theres always a Jean Paul Marat in the shadows!

[heikokhoo]

Yes it can and I have to do a wiki to find Jean, so he must be in the shadows.

[heikokhoo]

Jean Paul Marat! In the bathtub you mean?

[acerb45666555]

yup! thats the one!

[samsonlovesyou]

I'm certainly one of the people who congratulates the achievements, but with a healthy side of criticism.

I think the reason for the lack of acknowledgement for the USSR's achievements and subsequent soviet-bashing stems from an attempt to distance oneself from the *legitimate* failings. It's fashionable not just to criticise the failures, but to completely deny *any* successes, or acknowledge the scale of the task.

[heikokhoo]

1. As far as I know you are right the origin of this theory is Lenin, it was however widely accepted within the Marxist movement.

2. I think there are elements of the theory of Deng Xiao ping which are similar to the methods and ideas developed by the Lenin the the Bolshevisk in the New Economic policy, however Deng's posiiton is probably closer to that of the Right wing of Bolschevism.

[samsonlovesyou]

Brilliant discussion.

Two quick questions.

1) Was the point about labour aristocracy correctly attributed to Trotsky? I thought that was one of Lenin's theories.

2) Considering the point raised about Lenin's expectations to lead a bourgeois revolution, can this explain Deng Xiaoping Theory in China?

3) On the same point. What was the reason for Lenin's initial resistance to what later became Stalinism (state-capitalism) to develop the means of production? Ignoring the social policies of

[samsonlovesyou]

Stalin's Russia (which tends to take the focus off of the economic), it did succeed in lifting the Soviet Union to a superpower and industrialised the region to an extent which, imperialism not withstanding, was capable of realising socialism. I'm assuming that Lenin, brilliant intellectual that he was, had to have some reason, yet it seemed his only plan was for international revolution: "Without revolution in France, and certainly Germany, we shall perish"

Make that three quick questions :-)

[danielshacalis]

I think this labelling of "Stalinism" I dont personally agree with.

[samsonlovesyou]

What would you prefer?

To clarify my own usage, Stalinism doesn't necessitate Stalin's involvement (a la 'only' Stalin's USSR). For example, Castro's Cuba - I'd call it Stalinist, without it having an affiliation to Stalin or resembling his rule. Rather, the 1922-1926 formation of the "Socialism In One Country" plan after the failing of revolutions in Germany and France - which was removed from Lenin's ideas, albeit, it was forced upon the Bolsheviks. That's how I'm using it specifically.

[danielshacalis]

Castro's Cuba is in some bureaucratic, I agree. But at least, they are able to vote people into the National Assembly. You do not get to do that in China, Vietnam or North Korea whatsoever. I would say regarding "Stalinism". Stalin had very different views from when he started writing things in 1901. The idea of "Socialism in one Country" only came up in the years when he ruled. what I do think needs to be taken into account is the what led to it and the international circumstances.

[samsonlovesyou]

Oh indeed. I'm not supposing for one minute that; in fact, it's my contention there that it 'was' the international circumstances which lead to it. Both Stalin and Bukharin were too intelligent to believe that the Socialism In One Country policy was idea - it was a consolation for the failure of European revolution to manifest.

I think China does have some form of democracy at national assembly level. I'm not sure of the details.

But as I say, semantics. I'm referring to the economic base

[samsonlovesyou]

of 'Stalinism', as opposed to social policies like the democratic process, which, in Cuba is still far from being 'fully' democratic (only 50% of the assembly is voted for, I think and made up of union leaders etc. which generally includes party members. There are restrictions on who can run [not sure if you have to be a member of the PCC or not]).

[samsonlovesyou]

But I'm not laying the blame on Stalin. I just said: "it 'was' the international circumstances which lead to it."

Nevertheless, there were unnecessary excesses in Stalin's regime which can't be ignored, either. Because his hand was forced on some accounts doesn't mean that we should excuse all of his actions - that's following a leader blindly. It's important for communists to acknowledge this and learn from it.