Economical essay: "The hawk’s shadow"

[The_bolshevik]

by red fury: I disagree. If the leaders are controlled by a good, not-burocratic leader, OR BY A STRONG COLLECTIVIST IDEA OF HELPING YOUR COUNTRY then it doesn't occur.

In fact a certain leader having the ultimate role in a certain organiazation (or in our case the workers´ state) is the most common characteristics of the bureaucratization.

The very characteristics of a non-bureaucratic organization is that rank-and-file have a decisive role in the organization (in our case, working people in workers´state). Leaders can however earn respect of rank-and-file when they see how their ideas work correctly in practice and are correct, and that way leaders can have influence on them.

Second part- Even if some part goes to the "burocratic leaders" (I request you to specify/define this therm BTW!)
Then it is mutch smaller and the system works IN ANY CASE more efficient then the capitalist system.

I used the term bureaucracy, which I also I think defined very clearly. These are the leading cadres of an organizations that are alienated from the rank-and-file, thus having the ability of acting primarily in their interests and not in those of who they supposingly represent. And when they do that, then it depends on them, and on them alone, how much they will give and how much they will receive.

As I have already explained:So what happened then is that state was run primarily in the interests of the bureaucracy, and only secondly in the interest of the working people. The result was that the bureaucracy had more and more benefits and wealth, and differences between bureaucracy and working people was bigger and bigger when time went on.

Trotsky also pointed out that bureaucracy was thus making mismanagement, which is well documented in his book Revolution betrayed. Bureaucracy also can´t correctly manage planned economy, because planned economy is not in any way compatible with bureaucratization. Without people having control of the state, thus also having the ability to raise their voices, to protest, etc., the economy will be mismanaged.

For explanation I can say this. Capitalists are gaining their wealth through the market, which is governed by market forces, which to certain extent answer the commodity needs of people, but are at the same time making poverty, workers´ exploatation, imperialist wars and economic slumps.

Now in order to make a more rational system, to abolish social uncertainity and all the bad effects of it, the so called "free market" system has to be replaced by a planned economy. But if this is planned bureaucratically, this means without more or less direct role of masses, then this will be misplanned in the following dinamics.

First is that bureaucracy, with a mere administrationary means, can´t know the needs of masses, but it is in the interest of bureaucracy (to keep their privileges) to answer the need of masses, because lack of basic things will provide a social explosion. In order to do so, bureaucracy must create a big administrational apparatus, which is not needed in capitalism where market forces do this very thing (in capitalism we nevertheless have a lot of administrational factors, which could as well be abolished on the basis of genuine workers´ democracy). And when commodity production rises, when more and more different types of commodities are in circulation, bureaucracy needs to expand, granting privileges to more and more people, primarily to keep their very privileges and to try to answer the needs of the masses. But, as Lenin explained, the only way to answer the need of the masses, and to plan economy correctly, everyone has to be the bureaucrat, and in turn noone.

So while the efficiency of planning by the extension of the hand of bureaucracy raises for a little, bureaucratic looting is on a rise for much higher degree. So the contradiction between planned economy and bureaucracy is even widened, thus widening the irrationality of the status quo.

And as I explained in one of my previous posts, the outcome of this are two scenarios: Trotsky then (in 1930s) correctly predicted that when mismanagement will more and more deepen, people will start to get on the move hard, because life will become more and more intolerable. He pointed out 2 possibilities out of this kind of state of affairs, either people will organize in a real workers´ revolutionary party and overthrow the bureaucracy, or bureaucracy will be forced to abandon planned economy and denounce it as "bad", if they want to keep their privileges, turn peoples´ vision partly on nationalism, and return to capitalism, and try to loot as much as they can in the phase of transition and transform themselves in a new rulling class.

We could see both scenarios being implemented. For example Hungarian revolution of 1956 was a great example of how workers´ wanted to overthrow bureaucracy, and they actually did it for a few days, until 2nd Russian intervention. People in this movement were not moving towards capitalism, as capilist appologists now say, but actually created their own soviets, the book which well documents this is Peter Fryer´s book Hungarian tragedy, who was also eyewitness of the events so every single hour is documented.

The second scenarion (bureaucracy partly transforming itself in new rulling class in capitalism) is well known, thus needing no details to describe.

comradely,

[vorosilov]

"Socialism in one country" was the only way to build up the Soviet Union.
This is what the old revolutionists including Trotzky didn't understand. They couldn't understand it because they were internationalist professional revolutionalists.
They were talking about World Revolution and saying that the Oktober Revolution can't survive without World Revolution. But there was no hope that World Revolution would happen. But they were still dreaming about it in the thirties.
Saying in the thirties that the Soviet Union can't survive was a capital offence.

[The_bolshevik]

Originally posted by vorosilov


"Socialism in one country" was the only way to build up the Soviet Union.
This is what the old revolutionists including Trotzky didn't understand. They couldn't understand it because they were internationalist professional revolutionalists.
They were talking about World Revolution and saying that the Oktober Revolution can't survive without World Revolution. But there was no hope that World Revolution would happen. But they were still dreaming about it in the thirties.
Saying in the thirties that the Soviet Union can't survive was a capital offence.

October revolution obvisously did not survive. Trotsky explained that bureaucratic reaction is only a half way of the counter-revolution, the other way was done, as he correctly predicted, by bureaucracy itself. The main factor why this counter-revolution started is that there were material conditions lacking in Russia, and that could be overcome only by a successful socialist revolution in several other advenced capitalist countries.

It is true that USSR developed very much through Stalinism. But that was due to the advances of planned economy, which bureaucracy sabotaged and finally destroyed. If there was no bureaucratic reaction, there would be even bigger progress and a real possibility of destroying of capialism on a world scale once and for all would be present.

Of couse there WAS hope that revolution would expand to developed industrial states. Germany is nice example, where there were as much as 3 revolutions within 1917 and 1930 (there is a nice book tittled From revolution to counter-revoution in Germany). And workers´ actually took power in Germany, but were betrayed by the leaders (I have a nice documentary about it on my computer, but I can´t find the link at the momment). There were many factors why revolution failed. However one of them is policy of comintern, which told German revolutionaries after death of Luxemburg and Liebknecht that fascists should try first.

Saying in thirties that USSR can´t survive was the best conclusion. Trotsky correctly predicted that bureaucracy will burn their fingers with fascists, and that fascism will inevitably attack USSR.

comradely,

[The_bolshevik]

Originally posted by eyeradi8
Bolshevik,
I don't get it, are you for beaurocracy then, or against it? And if you are against it, how do you expect a government to run, especially one under a planned economy. Please, the abridged version in your reply.

Of course I am against bureaucracy, but I am for planned economy. I support the good part of USSR, planned economy, while I at the same time criticize the bad side, bureaucracy and dictatorship of the clique.

Government can be run quite well without bureaucracy. As I explained workers´ state is only a certain form of organization. So in a healthy workers´ state, state affairs are mainly run by elected representatives of working people.

The best way that representatives don´t alienate themselve from the rank-and-file is that they are not only elected by their working mates, but that they also keep dayly contact with them. So the representatives of workers´ are noone but fellow workers who don´t stop working when they are elected, so in that regard, they are still mere workers, which would for their extra work get more money, but until structure is bureaucratized this is nothing to worry about, since thus abuse is prevented.

One would say "but workers can´t run factories, for this experienced cadres are needed, etc. etc.". This is the oldest trick in the (capitalist) book. Not even that it is very irrational trick, it was also proven wrong in practice.

Last month I was attending a seminar of Der Funke organization (which is part of the IDOM international) in Austria where there were many international guests (apart from me there were comrades from Spain, Pakistan, Britain, etc..). One of comrades had a workshop regarding the venezuelean revolution (he was in venezuela for several months building a marxist tendency there) and showed a movie where the situation in venezuela can be seen very well. The part of venezuelean oil industry is actually now under workers´ control, and in Argentina a big potery factory, among several others. So this only prooves what we marxist knew already.

Venezuela is most definitely not a workers´ state, but what is happening there is a big radicalisation of the masses, which we think is a actually a revolutionary process.

For example it is quite funny how workers got their oil industry running by themselves. As is well know, a left wing reformist Chavez was elected in Venezuela, who wanted to keep oil industry in state hands, while his right wing opposition wanted to privatise it. Later on he was overthrown by a military coup stagged and supported by US embassy (this is quite well shown in the video Venezuela - another way is possible). But 3 days later masses stormed the new president´s (the one who was put to power by military coup) palace and put Chavez back to power.

Later on bourgeois and the little part of the petty bourgeois masses organized so called "national strike", because of "dictatorial nature" of Chavez regime, which is certainly not true, because if that was the case then they would not be protesting so openly and most certainly they could not control the media as they still do.

With the strike they wanted to create a state of affairs that would be suitable for another coup, but this strike was not actually a strike, but a bosses lock-out, who closed factories. Managers of oil industry also stopped the production, but later workers took it over and kicked the managers out. For that they got medals from Chavez.

But then after some months Chavez sent in his managers to manage the production. But then workers said that they manage the production now and that they kicked out managers. Then te managers said "but we were sent from Chavez, we are good managers." The workers then replied, " Very good, then you can help us and we will manage and produce together."

I will post links to the videos...

comradely,

[vorosilov]

Hello Bolshevik,

But those revolutions in Germany were destroyed very fast and a revolution in Germany doesn't mean a World Revolution. The Hungarian revolution lasted 133 days.
But Trotzky and his gang just were beating the drums again and again. It had to end one way or the other.
One the other hand, Stalin was sitting quietly and didn't try to stir up some World Revolutionist ideas. Had he done the opposite, Adolf Hitler could have ironed together an international coalition force against the "Judeo-Bolshevik" Soviet Union.

" Socialism in one country" theory was the only way the Soviet Union and the people of Russia to survive.

[The_bolshevik]

Originally posted by vorosilov

Hello Bolshevik,

But those revolutions in Germany were destroyed very fast and a revolution in Germany doesn't mean a World Revolution. The Hungarian revolution lasted 133 days.
But Trotzky and his gang just were beating the drums again and again. It had to end one way or the other.
One the other hand, Stalin was sitting quietly and didn't try to stir up some World Revolutionist ideas. Had he done the opposite, Adolf Hitler could have ironed together an international coalition force against the "Judeo-Bolshevik" Soviet Union.

" Socialism in one country" theory was the only way the Soviet Union and the people of Russia to survive.

This very conclusion is a Stalinist one, and was destroyed by events! They thought of the peaceful coexistance of "socialism in one country" (the rule of bureaucracy) and capitalism on the other side. And this idea has more in common with nazism than with marxism.

The oldest trick is to say that workers will provoke a reaction and violence if they will in any way (strike, demo, revolt?) raise against the oppression of the oppressing class. This is only to scare them tho´, becaue this is anyway the only means to the end. And what those capitalist ideologist apply to national scale, you use on world scale.

As I already told you, Hitler did create an international coalition against USSR, didn´t he? He also attacked it and almost defeated it! Now if we bear in mind that the so called theory of socialism in one country also has a lot of fault for the rise of Hitler, hand in hand with very primitive policy of so called "social-fascism" (Comintern urged that communist parties must not ally with social democrats to defeat Hitler in elections, because social democrats are in fact "social-fascists".[!!]) which followed from the stupid idea of "the third period".

In fact it is weakness that provokes reaction! Stalinists thought that they could avoid the war by being obedient to Hitler. But after they made so much mistakes during 20s and 30s, they could do nothing else. And for these mistakes, the people of USSR and other countries of the world were punished. Stalin seemed to be aware of that fact and when Wehrmacht was on the edge of Moscow said, "We destroyed everything bolsheviks created".

There is no way of building socialism in one country. A new social system cannot peacefully coexist with the old order, and also material sources of one country are totally inadequate, also Russia´s. This is what also Jacobins were aware of, and they correctly revolutionary challenged the feudalist Europe. This is the only way. And once again I want to remind you that failure of foreign revolutions and rise of fascism is in big part stalinist fault! So Stalinists had no progressive role at all!

comradely,

[vorosilov]

Hello Bolshevik,


"Hitler created an international coalition against the Soviet Union" - You said.
In some degree you are right. But who were the members of that coalition?
Italy, Hungary,Croatia, Romania, Slovakia and Japan, what had interest in the Pacific and that's why didn't attack the SU from the East when the Germans were hoping it the most. And yes, the Waffen SS divisions were made up from all over Europe.
This was not the coalition what could beat the Soviet Union since the other great powers like France, UK, USA were not the members of it.
Had the Trotzky gang succeded to overthrow Stalin and pushing for World Revolution, some of these great powers would have joined Hitler in his "crusade against the Judeo-Bolshevism" as his Hollyness the Papa did.

Best Regards: Marshall Vorosilov