>This is a Weberian approach to Soviet history, one which focuses on
>organization and institutions rather than overall class dynamics. The main
>objective factors that led to bureaucracy are:
>
>1) destruction of socialist workers in the civil war
>2) mass working class unemployment after the civil war
>3) international economic pressures from the capitalist class
>4) failure of revolutions in Europe
>5) power of the countryside over the town, which could not be resolved
>either through the NEP or through anti-NEP measures. In other words, a
>dilemma. Stalin's "resolution" was simply a postponement of capitalist
>restoration.
All true. But are you saying questions of organisation are not relevant?
>>I'm inclined to answer (a) I'm not really going on about what Lenin stood
>>for - I haven't found anybody else in Russia in 1917 who stood for anything
>>much at all - rather what he, in his trying circumstances, effectively did;
>
>Perhaps you need to go to the library and research these matters before you
>pontificate on early Soviet history.
Well, I was speculating in order to make a point about organisation. If this bit's wrong, all you need to do is tell me where it's wrong.
>>(b) that April was a turning point at which the bolshie structure assumed
>>an autonomous elite with totalitarian discretion;
>
>April 1917? The purpose of the April Theses was to make the Soviets the new
>government. They were more democratic than the Duma. This was the choice:
>democratic Soviets versus anti-democratic Duma. You evidently favor the
>anti-democratic Duma.
How do you arrive at this conclusion? I understand the bolshies had 88% of the workers' electors and only half a dozen reps in the Duma. I'm no fan of the Duma. But then, I wasn't talking about the Duma.
>Sheer nonsense. Lenin never wrote in the abstract about "uninterrupted
>revolution." Perhaps you are confused with Hugh Rodwell. Lenin always wrote
>about conjunctural situations, as any Marxist should. You are discussing
>these questions in the framework of some sort of Weberian problematique.
>How absurd. It is history we need to discuss, not "mass consciousness" in
>the abstract. You are spreading academic squid's ink everywhere, when
>historical clarity is called for.
Alright, class consciousness in Russia in April 1917 - the one Lenin calls 'insufficient' in the April theses. And are you saying there's no link between that category and Lenin's idea of 'uninterrupted revolution' (as manifest in the 2nd thesis from memory)?
>The disappointments of 1917? You mean overthrowing the Czar and a workers
>revolution.
No. Obviously I don't. I was referring to your reference to Kerensky. He was a disappointment, was he not? A threat to the gains of February, was he not?
If you want to talk about disappointment, take a look at the
>mess you created at Spoons thaxis instead. For somebody who has such a
>knack for destroying a Marxist space, I am amazed that you sit on judgement
>on Lenin.
Thaxis is fine, thanks. Anyway, we none of us make history in conditions of our choosing, do we? And I'm not judging Lenin the person, merely, the assumption by a central few of control over police, army and bureaucracy in conditions of nationalised agriculture and banking. Abolition and nationalisation are socialist goals - but the control of that infrastructure is an organisational question of some significance, I'd have thought.
>More useless abstractions. "Planting the seeds" is germane to psychological
>discussions. For example, my father planted the seeds of my neurosis when
>he locked me in the basement when I neglected to mow the lawn.
Even if it was not foreseeable that this would make you neurotic - indeed, even if your dad thought it necessary to lock you in the basement in the prevailing circumstances - would it not be of interest now that you are in fact neurotic? If we don't want people to develop neuroses, then the exercise is not one of blaming your dad, but formulating alternative responses to recalcitrant boys.
>The roots of
>the degeneration of the Russian revolution are in the unfavorable
>relationship of class forces that the revolution found itself in 80 years
>ago. The Sandinistas, who had a completely different model of socialism,
>failed for similar reasons. By blaming Lenin, you are letting the
>bourgeoisie off the hook, a typical ploy for liberals and social democrats.
I don't blame him. I'm tentatively trying to learn something from what he did - quite possibly in particular circumstances that made few options apparent to him.
>You need to apologize for not only being smug, but for willfully
>obfuscating Soviet history and promoting a vision of socialism that is ten
>times more bankrupt than anything official Communism ever stood for. You
>are putting forward some really odious opinions. I hesitate to call them
>ideas, since they are so lacking in either economic, social or historical
>content.
I think your opening points are decisively significant and quite accurate, yet feel they do not go the topic I was discussing, that of the concentration of political and economic power. Whether Lenin had alternatives or not, I reckon social revolution in the near future would have a wholly different set of circumstances to confront - one in which tendencies to centralised control are to be treated with suspicion.
That's all I said in my opening post. Nothing ahistorical about that. The mere mention of bureaucratic centralism and its dangers is not anti-Marxist Weberianism, is it?
Oh, and Dan's post has just beeped at me. I see he distinguishes between democratic centralism and bureaucratic centralism. I suppose under the former, criticism would be constructive, and co-ordinated action ultimately arrived at by consequent consensus. Whereas, under the latter, shrill denouncements would prevent the participation and edification of the citizenry and any ensuing action would be co-ordinated by way of bullying.
Maybe one way of preventing the former transforming into the latter is rather unfairly excluding those who were locked in basements in their youth.
Cheers, Rob.