SP: "Stalinism played a relatively progressive role"

[audiotech]

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

Groucho Marx.

 

[bluestreak]

I'm sure Stalin did play a relatively progressive role at the time. He stopped shooting everyone, and started letting other people actually try stuff before shooting them. That, for Stalin, was progressive.

 

[Fedayn]

Fed - this implies "the economy" is some kind of constant variable that just changes hands - not that the political revolution would also be a revolution in the whole idea and structure of "the economy".

It 'implies' an obvious point that the albeit deformed planned economy developed the productive forces which benefitted society in numerous ways.

 

[likesfish]

but the plans were rubbish.
could you imagine a commie mobile phone or an ipod or the internet.
or world of warcraft or even mountain bikes
or single speed bikes

 

[Diamond]

I wonder if anyone's down a cost benefit analysis of Stalinist economic policy with regard to possible alternatives and the development of competitors.

 

[Combustible]

but the plans were rubbish.
could you imagine a commie mobile phone or an ipod or the internet.
or world of warcraft or even mountain bikes
or single speed bikes

Yeah the USSR never achieved any groundbreaking technological developments

 

[Fedayn]

but the plans were rubbish.
could you imagine a commie mobile phone or an ipod or the internet.
or world of warcraft or even mountain bikes
or single speed bikes

Or the first man in space....

 

[Idris2002]

only on a very crude, schematic definiton of what would constitute "development", as though that could only be measured quantitatively. Surely for an economy to develop in a "progressive" direction implies something more than this?

'We are one hundred years behind the west, we have ten years to make good the difference, or they will crush us'.

That's the whole problem with the idea of a 'progressive Stalinism' right there; the productive forces may have been developed, but they were developed in a highly distorted way, one that did not involve the satisfaction of human needs through socialised production, but through the creation of a heavily armed garrison state.

Does Taafe give any reasons why he thinks Stalinism exhausted its 'progressive' potential in the 1970s? Because I'd say that that exhaustion was built into the founding act and founding crime of the Stalinist political economy: forced collectivisation. The transitory act of 'primitive socialist accumulation' actually meant a long-term trend in which Soviet agriculture would be unable to meet the needs of the USSR's people. Stop-gap measures like the sting in the late 70s where Soviet grain buyers in New York used false-flag methods to buy American grain were just that, stop-gaps.

 

[discokermit]

how can slipping from socialism into thermidorian reaction be progressive? if you compare russia to the feudalism of before, then yes. but compare the revolution to the pogroms, purges and imperialism of stalin then to my mind it was a massive step backwards.

 

[Lo Siento.]

I´m with NI here. Don´t think it´s even slightly controversial for Taafe to say that. Trotskyist spouts orthodox Trotskyism shocker.

 

[Idris2002]

Trotskyist spouts orthodox Trotskyism shocker.

You're right, in the year 2009 that is pretty shocking. And these are the Trots it's OK to like!

 

[durruti02]

He dragged russia out of the dark ages and won the war.

yes as did Pol Pot in Cambodia

 

[durruti02]

What a bizarre thread.

The quote, in the context given, is a straightforward statement that up until the 1970s, Stalinism developed the productive forces in Russia. Which is entirely accurate. The fact that it's prefaced by a reference to Stalinism's "monstrous" crimes and immediately followed by a reference to capitalism's role in developing the pre-WW1 economy, should make it clear that it is not a political endorsement of Stalinism.

This is a fairly standard issue Trotskyist point to make, and given Articul8's own past I'm genuinely baffled that he's surprised by it.

As it happens I'd be critical of the quote, not because of what it says about Stalinism but because of what it implies about capitalism, but that's a different issue.

it says progressive .. not that stalinism advanced the productive forces but was 'progressive' .. so poor choice of words or is he refering to society in general??

 

[nightbreed]

Key words

'industry and society did develop'

Says it all.

 

[articul8]

eh? says fuck all. Is that what you mean

 

[Spion]

Stalinism played a relatively progressive role.

IMO, this statement is insufficiently clear for a marxist.

First principles here are, what is progressive to a marxist? Well, in the case of the revolutionary development of a society from a backward agricultural one with small islands of capitalism, it would mean (primarily) the abolition of capitalism and the development of the productive forces under the democratic control of the workers.

What did Stalinism actually do? It presided over a society where capitalism existed no longer - the economy was planned, but not democratically. Living standards were improved and a working class was massively expanded in a country that hardly had one. You could say these things were progressive in that they materially raised living standards and created a class that could lead society.

But at the same time, it did all these things in a thoroughly reactionary way, in that the independent will of the working class in society was utterly crushed.

So, the only way I can accept 'relatively progressive' as a characterisation of the USSR is if it means 'Stalinism's role was to defend and develop progressive gains in a thoroughly reactionary way. A way which would ultimately lead to the economy's unravelling'

 

[Spion]

but the plans were rubbish.
could you imagine a commie mobile phone or an ipod or the internet.
or world of warcraft or even mountain bikes
or single speed bikes

The fool touches on an important point.

Planning an economy without any kind of feedback from the workers and consumers can plan for the big things it needs quite successfully, like steelworks, railways, large scale means of production in general.

But without the detailed system of feedback that democratic planning provides, a bureaucratically planned economy can't deal with the details - tractors and cars for eg that work well, consumer goods. This is why the soviet economy started to fail in the 70s. It had done the big things it needed to do but started to fall over its inner rottenness when faced with a competition with a western consumer economy.

 

[Spion]

but the plans were rubbish.
could you imagine a commie mobile phone or an ipod or the internet.
or world of warcraft or even mountain bikes
or single speed bikes

people in large chunks of the world would have to spend their entire annual income to buy an ipod or mountain bike. But hey, capitalism works, eh?

 

[articul8]

The value of a society's development can't just be measured by the rate of growth industrial output, steel production etc. or even in income data or suchlike - This is a bureaucrat's thinking - and yes it's there in Trotsky so I'm not sure why I'm surprised but it's still shocking.

 

[Spion]

The value of a society's development can't just be measured by the rate of growth industrial output, steel production etc. or even in income data or suchlike - This is a bureaucrat's thinking - and yes it's there in Trotsky so I'm not sure why I'm surprised but it's still shocking.

How do you measure the development of a society?

 

[Nigel]

What a bizarre thread.

The quote, in the context given, is a straightforward statement that up until the 1970s, Stalinism developed the productive forces in Russia. Which is entirely accurate. The fact that it's prefaced by a reference to Stalinism's "monstrous" crimes and immediately followed by a reference to capitalism's role in developing the pre-WW1 economy, should make it clear that it is not a political endorsement of Stalinism.

This is a fairly standard issue Trotskyist point to make, and given Articul8's own past I'm genuinely baffled that he's surprised by it.

As it happens I'd be critical of the quote, not because of what it says about Stalinism but because of what it implies about capitalism, but that's a different issue.

Nigel Irr. what is your or the S.P's position/perspective on class consciousness within USSR, China, 'Stalinist' and other similar regimes?

This issue is one that must surely make a difference to how struggle for socialism and resistance towards exploitattion, oppression etc. are put into practice? Within these regimes and if and when they break down?

 

[articul8]

How do you measure the development of a society?

well for a start, who is doing the measuring, and what with what justification do they establish the criteria?

If we are talking about the quality of lived experience, then don't you need to include subjective input? - which implies a political not just statistical reading of what constitutes "progressive" development.

 

[Spion]

well for a start, who is doing the measuring, and what with what justification do they establish the criteria?

If we are talking about the quality of lived experience, then don't you need to include subjective input? - which implies a political not just statistical reading of what constitutes "progressive" development.

Quite. That's why my posts have stressed the role/absence of democratic planning in the USSR as key factors in characterising its socio-economic structure.

 

[belboid]

The quote, in the context given, is a straightforward statement that up until the 1970s, Stalinism developed the productive forces in Russia. Which is entirely accurate.

but that is not what the quote means nigel and you know it. Lots of capitalists advanced productive forces, even reactionaries. But does that get described as part of a 'progressive role'? No. Because that is not what it means. It means that the bureaucratic stalinist state was progressive compared with capitalism.

That Taafe says the system was progressive until the seventies - when all the contradictins came to a head along with other parts of the workld capitalist system - simply shows how crassly economistic his & the SP's analysis was. An analysis that said the stalinist economies were still inherently more stable than the wests righht up until a few months before they competely collapsed.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

It means that the bureaucratic stalinist state was progressive compared with capitalism.

No, it means that the bureaucratically planned economy was a progressive step as compared with capitalism. By implication the reestabishment of capitalism was a step backwards.

 

[Nigel]

No, it means that the bureaucratically planned economy was a progressive step as compared with capitalism. By implication the reestabishment of capitalism was a step backwards.

Would you accept that class consciousness is an issue here:
Being more progressive in 'Stalinist'(for a better word) regimes.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

As it happens I'd be critical of the quote, not because of what it says about Stalinism but because of what it implies about capitalism, but that's a different issue.

Well not if you think stalinism was a form of capitalism like what we does it's not.

Capitalism was progressive. Absolutely uncontroversial marxist argument to make. Nobody who's read the Communit Manifesto can escape MArx's admiration for capitalism...at a certain stage.

 

[likesfish]

people in large chunks of the world would have to spend their entire annual income to buy an ipod or mountain bike. But hey, capitalism works, eh?

true but in places where capitalism has been tried people have the chance to get richer. Its not perfect but it does'nt rely on the system being anywhere near perfect it works much better than the alternatives.
china and india ditched state planned economys and are beginning to drag there populations out of poverty.
state planned economys just are not very good.

 

[Nigel]

true but in places where capitalism has been tried people have the chance to get richer. Its not perfect but it does'nt rely on the system being anywhere near perfect it works much better than the alternatives.
china and india ditched state planned economys and are beginning to drag there populations out of poverty.
state planned economys just are not very good.

Also creating a large social underclass flocking into urban areas and in many areas massive social unrest!

Capitalism on a global scale becoming its own nemesis!!!

 

[likesfish]

but those masses are not looking to buy SWP papers anytime soon