Yeah, I've done some assessment. Haven't thought about it lately. I wrote a thing on the collapse of perestroika in historical context that appeared in the Socialist Register in 1991 that I think is not totally embarassing. I am not sure I have anything startlingly new to say. Certainly nothing that might help the next targets of state repression.
Some conclusions I arrived that:
1) Stalinism is a unique social formation, an ideology and practice of third world development driven by the social interests of the bureaucracy as a ruling group. It is marked by: single party dictatorship, state attempts to control production through planning, and disregard for democratic nicities.
2. Stalinist societies are not state capitalist, but they are not, except in the most primitive sense of the world, socialist either. They are not "deformed worker's states." The workers are in no sense the ruling class under Stalinism. It's not clear whether Stalinism was a mode of production on its own. It may have been too ephemeral.
3. Stalinism is now over -- Humpty Dumpty has fallen off his wall. It will never come back. It is not, therefore a threat or a prospect, whichever you prefer.
4. Although Stalinist societies are necessarily repressive, totalitarian terror is not a required feature of Stalinist socities, especially "mature" ones.
5. Stalinism was reasonably successful as a model for rapid industrialization. It brought many poor nations into the 19th century, Russia included. However, it's economic limitations, nota ll of which can be blamed on imperialist aggression, prevented it frpm developing beyond that. This contributed to its fall --0 in classiv Marxist manner, the relations of productioned fettered the forces of production.
I have more pearls along this line. Is that what you were looking for?
--- martin <mschiller at pobox.com> wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2005, at 12:21 PM, andie nachgeborenen
> wrote:
>
> > Well, I misunderstood you, I thought you were
> saying
> > it was OK.
> >
> > Now, "what I have learned from my study of
> historical
> > events" is a rather vague question. I'm not sure,
> > really, what you were looking for.
>
> The question referred back to your earlier post.
>
> > Charles will say that this is mere anti-Sovietism.
> I
> > say that it is essential to a proper appraisal of
> the
> > Stalinist system, which is no longer really an
> object
> > to be defended, but merely assessed.
> >
>
> It seemed to suggest that you had performed some
> assessment. The
> assessment is what I was looking for, and the
> hopeful survival lesson
> that it would provide for the next 'kulaks'.
>
> Martin
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail