RE: socialist societies

From: Eugene Matusov (ematusov@udel.edu)
Date: Sat Jun 17 2000 - 09:13:28 PDT


Hi Peter and Nate and everybody--

I want to make two brief comments on Peter's reference to Trostky and Nate's
point.

---------Peter's quote begins----------
I suggest you read Trotsky for an analysis of the social and material
nature of the stalinist societies, which have recently rejoined the ranks of
market capitalism. His most explicit writing on this was The Revolution
Betrayed in 1937 (?) in which he described the Soviet Union as a
"degenerated workers' state," which was not socialist.
---------Peter's quote ends------------

Russian writer Solzheniztin made an interesting argument in his famous book
"Archipelago Gulag" about Trotsky. Solzheniztin argues that Stalin implement
Trotsky's ideas about socialism at time when Trotsky was in power. Things
like labor camps for re-education, or treating workers as mobilized army
were invented by Trotsky in early 20s, according to Solzheniztin. I did not
read Trotsky much to check it, but quotes that Solzheniztin provided were
convincing. My point is that Stalin did not deviate Soviet state from
socialism but was a part of it. Many left-wing Soviet intelligencia
criticized Lenin and Trotsky from the beginning of the communist coup using
similar arguments the Peter quotes in Trotsky.

-----------Nate's quote begins----------
I guess what I am asking and maybe this gets close to Eugene's comments is
that when discussing socialism should not we approach it materiastically.
Like capitalism, socialism has a material basis that should not be left
unexamined. Stalin is a distortion, one could even argue a capitalist in
certain regards, but it seems there is a material basis to this thing we
call socialism that can take one farther than "we have not experienced it
yet".
----------Nate's quote ends----------

I agree with Nate. Was French terror a deviation from French Revolution? --
no, it was Revolution itself, like it or not.

What do you think?

Eugene
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Nate Schmolze [mailto:nate_schmolze@yahoo.com]
  Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2000 7:50 AM
  To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
  Subject: Re: socialist societies

  Peter (F),

  As I read your message I wondered about your statement,

  "In other words, these countries had never experienced a workers
revolution. Human history rarely follows a set script, there's lots of
synthesis around familiar patterns and within historically determined
constraints. Who could have predicted stalinism in the 19th century (or
even during the Russian Revolution)? But in retrospect it makes sense that
it happened. But please don't call it "socialist"!!! We haven't seen
socialism yet."

  I guess I question somewhat the utopian way in which socialism is defined
in the above quote. I mean there are romantic notions of capitalism also
and we could say - oh we have not experienced capitalism yet. Capitalism too
never achieved its "ideal" form and my take is Marx approached the topic
materiatically.

  I guess what I am asking and maybe this gets close to Eugene's comments is
that when discussing socialism should not we approach it materiastically.
Like capitalism, socialism has a material basis that should not be left
unexamined. Stalin is a distortion, one could even argue a capitalist in
certain regards, but it seems there is a material basis to this thing we
call socialism that can take one farther than "we have not experienced it
yet".

  Nate

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Peter Farruggio
    To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
    Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 7:43 PM
    Subject: Fwd: socialist societies

    Paul suggested I post this private message to the list. I don';t know
how popular communist politics is to the list membership, but here goes...

      Elisa, Paul,

      I suggest you read Trotsky for an analysis of the social and material
nature of the stalinist societies, which have recently rejoined the ranks of
market capitalism. His most explicit writing on this was The Revolution
Betrayed in 1937 (?) in which he described the Soviet Union as a
"degenerated workers' state," which was not socialist. In the early 1950s
some trotskyists continued this analysis to characterize the newly formed
"socialist" satellite states in Eastern Europe as "deformed workers' states"
because capitalism had been abolished (by Stalin's use of the Red Army), but
replaced by a non-democratic state bureaucracy. In other words, these
countries had never experienced a workers revolution. Human history rarely
follows a set script, there's lots of synthesis around familiar patterns and
within historically determined constraints. Who could have predicted
stalinism in the 19th century (or even during the Russian Revolution)? But
in retrospect it makes sense that it happened. But please don't call it
"socialist"!!! We haven't seen socialism yet.

      Pete

        I don't think that the continued subjugation of women in 20th
century socialist societies demonstrates that male exploitation of women is
a more fundamental relation of exploitation in capitalist society but it
very well demonstrates that the kind of socialism that was practiced in
these countries didn't really transform the family relation either, as far
as I know: the nuclear family certainly didn't go out of existence and Marx
and Engels saw that as the primary locus of the exploitation of women in
capitalist society. These socialist states however were marred in a number
of ways. I see the 20th century socialist experience in terms of the
international struggle between capitalist and socialist states. Perhaps the
time wasn't ripe yet as Rosa Luxemburg thought, and the formation of the
Leninist Party that morphed into the socialist totalitarian state, led to
its final demise. More speculation.

        I don't know if this clarifies my position about the position
concerning the subjugation of women in capitalist society. There is
certainly a lot of room for thought.

        Paul H. Dillon

        But it seems that historical marxist societies persisted in
discriminating women. And that non-capitalist societies still discriminate
or subjugate women (and have done so). It seems that the subjugation of
women is prior to class division, it is more archaic, primitive, atavistic.
And even more universal than class opression.

          Elisa Sayeg
          cyborg@uol.com.br



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 01:00:36 PDT