>Bill, this would not be 100% correct either - there certainly was a
>measure of capitalist development despite the predominance of feudal
>relations in the countryside. In other words Russia was in a
>transitionary phase and this was reflected in the absolutist form of
>the state,
Yes, I concede that it was semi-feudal rather than purely feudal. But Russia can be conveniently classified as feudal in the sense that the ruling class was distinctly the feudal aristocracy rather than the emerging capitalist class. The existence of isolated capitalist development doesn't detract from this fact, it was an absolutist state in the form of an absolute monarchy.
> as in a number of other countries, including other East European
>countries, as well as Germany to some extent. BTW we should not
>forget also that it was not only 'communism' that provided the
>impetus to completing this transition. Franco's project was
>identical and it is not inconceivable that he did it as well or
>better than communists in Spain would have done. So there were
>certainly alternatives to the bourgeois republic as a political form
>of modernisation.
The alternatives all seem strikingly similar. Franco, Stalin, Bonaparte, Mao, Cromwell, etc. The transition from feudalism to capitalism seems to be universally accomplished by absolute military dictatorship.
But these dictatorships shouldn't be confused with the form of absolute rule by the feudal ruling class that it replaces. The rule of Tsar Nicholas II clearly did not represent a "transitionary phase" from feudalism. This was a conservative rule, representing the interests of the old ruling class.
Lenin's (and later Stalin's) government was revolutionary in nature, its historic mission was the transition from feudalism to capitalism. So my point remains, I agree that Stalin's rule was a (long) transition to capitalism, but your assertion that it was a transition "from one stage of capitalism to another" appears to be at odds with the fact that Russia wasn't capitalist to begin with. (If you continue to assert it was already capitalist, when did the transition to capitalist rule take place?)
It is also at odds with logic in that it is essentially asserting that the transition was from capitalism to capitalism. Which wouldn't be a transition at all of course, yet most surely some form of transition took place.
I don't understand why people refuse to face the facts on this issue.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas