Democratic Dictatorship or a Dictatorship Of The Proletariat
Even as late as 1924, Stalin was still arguing that the concept of building Socialism In One Country was impossible. Overthrowing the capitalist state, and establishing a workers' state was possible, but that is not socialism. A workers' state is not a socialist state, but, merely, the first, necessary step on that path. As Trotsky, says, however, that article, by Stalin, disappeared.
The reason was that, following Lenin's death, Stalin needed a theoretical basis upon which to oppose Trotsky, and chose Permanent Revolution, for that role. It fitted the bill, because Permanent Revolution had been developed by Trotsky, when he was not a Bolshevik, and at a time when Lenin was still advocating the idea of a Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry (bourgeois-democracy), as the basis of any Russian Revolution.
In fact, this difference of opinion between Lenin and Trotsky was more apparent than real. Lenin made clear that his formulation was “algebraic”. That is it was based upon the fact that, in 1905, when Trotsky developed his theory, the workers formed a small proportion of the population, compared to the peasantry. So, it seemed that any revolutionary government would have to accommodate, and lean heavily on, the peasantry. How heavily, and in what proportion the peasantry would be represented was unknown, and hence the formula was algebraic – G = W + P, in which the values of W and P are undetermined. Only history would determine these values.
But, Lenin also recognised what Marx had set out, which is that the peasantry is too heterogeneous to form a ruling-class. Bonapartist regimes, including fascist regimes, base themselves on the peasantry and petty-bourgeoisie, partly for this reason that they provide an amorphous mass for the required footsoldiers, without having the class consciousness to impose themselves on the regime, allowing it to rise above classes. The charismatic leader provides the glue, the unifying force – usually based upon vague formulations of opposition, rather than concrete formulations of what they are for – that overcomes the heterogeneous interests of the peasants/petty-bourgeois rabble. The vague oppositional utterances of the Brexitories, including Starmer, are of this nature.
This meant that these regimes must, also, when in power, actually act in the interest of some other class, as Engels also described in relation to the Peasant War in Germany. Either they act in the interest of the bourgeoisie, or of the proletariat, in however a bureaucratic, deformed and indirect manner. The fascists, in Italy, Germany, and Spain, acted in the interests of capital, i.e. the bourgeoisie, even though they also acted against the interests of individual capitalists, sucked surplus value out of the economy to sustain their regimes, and so damaged capital as a whole, and, as a result of the generally bureaucratic and inefficient nature of the economy they create, also damage the interests of the bourgeoisie. They represent the interests of the bourgeoisie, despite all this, for the simple reason that they preserve its class rule, as against the alternative of a return of the feudal regime (Napoleon), or the coming to power of the proletariat (Mussolini, Hitler, Franco).
The same is true in relation to the national revolutions of colonial countries. The Bolivarian revolutions in Latin America, in the 19th century, the revolutions in Middle-Eastern and African countries in the 20th century and so on, were of the nature of that of Napoleon, but, wherever the working-class, had also grown, they also acted to viciously suppress it, more like that of Mussolini, Hitler, Franco.
Alternatively, the Bonapartist regime must represent the interests of the proletariat (Stalin) even though it does so by similarly attacking the immediate interests of the workers, sucking surplus value/product from the economy and so on. Any attempt to avoid such a necessary choice simply results in instability, and a failed state, with repeated coups and changes in regime, as seen across Africa, and parts of Latin America, where one military junta replaces another. Another variant is where such Bonapartist regimes tie themselves to some external power, as happened with the states being nominally neutral (Third World), but actually tied to either the USSR or else US imperialism. Israel is a good example of the latter, and Zionism is a specific form of Bonapartism, based on “blood and soil”, nationalism, myth, and religious mysticism.
No comments:
Post a Comment