communist lefthttp://blog.jinbo.net/iscralee/국제주의, 좌익공산주의, 혁명적 맑스주의, 노동자평의회, 세계혁명, 공산주의 인터내셔널2018-03-14T18:44:03+09:00Textcube 1.8.3.1 : Secondary Dominant평의회주의 비판자유로운 영혼http://blog.jinbo.net/iscralee/72010-05-17T17:36:19+09:002010-05-17T17:36:19+09:00<!--FCKeditor--><p><a name="[문서의 처음]"></a></p>
<p style="font-size: 24pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-weight: bold; font-size: 24pt; color: #000000; line-height: 51px; font-family: 한양견고딕,한컴돋움; letter-spacing: 0px; text-align: center">“평의회주의” 문제</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "> </p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">1. 평의회주의(Councilism)는 평의회공산주의운동 내에 1930년대에 이론화되기 시작한 오류의 극단적 표현이며 퇴행이다. 평의회주의는 러시아 혁명, PT독재, 당, 집권화에 대해서 수천번 부르주아지에 의해 주장되고, 무정부주의에 의해 반복된 입징에 “맑스주의적” 형식을 입히려는 공개적이고 기회주의적 시도이다. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "> </p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">2. 여기서는 러시아 경험에 기초하여, 맑스주의의 기본적인 두 가지 축인 PT혁명의 국제주의적인, 본질적으로 정치적 성격을 평의회주의가 공격하는 것을 살펴본다. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "> </p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">3. 세계혁명인가, 일국사회주의인가?</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "> </p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">1) 평의회주의가 일국사회주의라는 스탈린주의적 입장을 반대하지만 PT가 “세계혁명을 기다리지 않고 임노동과 상품을 폐절시키기 시작했다는 주장은 문밖으로 내버린 입장을 다시 창문으로 불러드리는 것이다. 공산주의의 세계적 건설과 일국사회주의 건설 사이의 중간은 없다. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">2) 부르주아혁명과 PT혁명 사이에는 근본적 차이가 있다. 부르주아혁명은 목적과 수단에서 민족적이지만 PT혁명은 목적에서(공산주의) 그리고 수단에서(혁명과 새로운 사회 건설의 국제적 성격) 역사상 최초의 세계혁명이다. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">3) 국제주의적 사고방식에 반대하여 1926~27년에 스탈린주의는 “일국사회주의” 테제를 주장한다. 트로츠키와 좌익공산주의(독일-네덜란드 공산주의자 포함)의 모든 경향은 이러한 입장을 반역으로 보았으며 이태리 좌파 Bilan은 그것을 코민테른의 죽음으로 보았다. 이점에서 무정부주의의 논리는 스탈린주의와 기본적으로 같다. 반집권화가 “일국사회주의”의 정식을 싫어하는 것 같지만 “자율”과 “자주관리”의 기반위에 “한 마을”과 “한 공장”에서의 사회주의를 말하고 있다. 이러한 주장은 “민주적” 외양과 “대중주도권의 존중”을 갖는 것 같지만 자본주의적 착취와 부르주아국가의 방어라는 스탈린주의와 동일한 방향으로 이끈다.</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">4) 평의회주의의 상이한 요소들의 진화가 있다. GIK가 채택한 “볼셰비즘에 대한 테제”(러시아 혁명의 부르주아 본질)는 가장 최악의 혼란의 문을 열어 놓았다. 그러나 GIK 세계PT혁명의 본질을 공개적으로 의문시 하지 않았다. 그럼에도 불구하고 “본질적으로 경제적 성격”에 대한 주장과 당의 부정은 암묵적으로 늪으로 빠지게 했다. 그 후 평의회주의 집단(특히 1930년대)은 공개적으로 “지방적 및 민족적” 사회주의 건설의 테제를 이론화했다.</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "> </p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">4. 경제혁명인가 정치혁명인가</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "> </p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">1) 평의회주의는 PT혁명의 첫날부터의 추진력은 공산주의적 경제조치의 채택이라고 말한다. 그러나 자본주의는 20세기 초 세계시장의 형성을 완성했다. PT기지의 권력 장악은 “해방구”를 만든 것이 아니라 그 지역은 자본주의 세계의 가치법칙에 완전히 종속되어 나갈 것이기 때문에 여전히 적에게 속해 있다. PT권력은 본질적으로 전체적이고, 승리한 지역의 본질적 역할을 세계혁명의 교두보의 역할을 하는 것이다. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">2) 평의회주의가 “공산주의적 경제조치”에 매달리는 이유는 PT혁명이 “정치수준에서 가로막혀” 노동계급의 조건에 어떠한 중요한 변화도 가져오지 못할 것이라는 두려움 때문이다. 공산주의를 위한 투쟁의 목적은 착취의 새로운 형태를 만드는 것이 아니라 모든 착취를 폐절하는 것이다. 이것은 정치적 권력정복을 진행시킬 수 있는 경제권력을 옛 사회 내에 만들 수 없다는 것이 아니라 그 반대의 궤적, 즉 세계 수준에서의 정치권력 획득으로부터 새로운 사회건설이 시작된다는 것이다. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">3) 평의회주의는 PT혁명의 경제적 성격을 방어하는데 PT의 착취기반이 경제적이기 때문에 그것을 폐절하기 위하여 공산주의적 경제조치가 필요하다는 것이다. 그런데 인류의 역사적 진화에는 밀접하게 관련되어 있지만 독립적인 두 가지 요인, 한편으로는 생산력의 발전과 생산관계의 지형(경제적 요인), 다른 한편으로 계급투쟁(정치적 요인)이 개입한다. 경제적 요인의 비중이 압도하는 부르주아혁명과 달리 PT혁명은 처음부터 높은 수준의 의식과 적극적 참여를 요구하는 PT와 부르주아지 사이의 계급투쟁의 마지막 결과이다. 주체적 요인(PT 대중의 의식, 통일, 단결, 자신감)의 기본적인 원칙 차원은 역사상 최초의 대중적이고 의식적 혁명인 PT혁명의 정치적 성격의 우선성이다. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "> </p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">5. 실천에서의 평의회주의의 “경제적 혁명”</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "> </p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">1) 평의회주의의 러시아 혁명의 대차대조표는 이렇다 ; 정치의 물신화와 “머나먼 혁명”의 희망 대신에 공장의 노동자통제의 즉각적 조치, 임금노동과 상품교환의 폐지를 채택하여 “관료주의”를 만들지 않고 혁명이 앞으로 나아가게 하는 것이다. 이것은 평의회공산주의를 유혹하고 평의회주의가 오늘날 속물화시킨 주장이다. 평의회주의가 이러한 교훈을 끌어낼 때 그것은 맑스주의 전통으로부터 벗어나면서 무정부주의와 경제주의와 연결되게 만든다. 이러한 평의회주의의 정식은 프루동에 이어 아나코생디칼리즘과 혁명적 생디칼리즘으로 이어졌으며 1917~23년 오스트로-맑스주의로, 그람시의 공장평의회 이론으로, 그리고 오토 룰레와 AUUD의 이론가로 이어졌다. 러시아의 콜론타이, 1936년 스페인에서의 무정부주의도 여기에 속한다. 이들의 공통점은 노동계급을 단순한 경제적, 사회학적 범주로 보고 역사적 계급으로 인식하지 않는 것이다.</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">2) 공장통제는 생산이 비용과 이윤율에 종속되어있을 때 세계시장에서의 경쟁에 의해 무엇을 가져올 수 있는가? 임노동은 노동시간 인환권으로 철폐되지 않고 상품폐지는 “공장사이의 회계”로 대체되지 않는다. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">3) 자본주의 해체의 시기에 부르주아지는 “민주적 통제”, “자주관리”의 이름으로 평의회주의가 주장했던 미시적 개혁을 하고 있다. 따라서 위험은 계급이 역사적 관점을 상실하고 하나의 공장, 하나의 지역에 갇혀 패배한다는 점이다.</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "> </p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="color: #3366ff"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 21px; font-family: '바탕'; letter-spacing: 0px; text-align: justify">「러시아 수수께끼를 어떻게 다룰 것인가」International Review, 1st Quarter, 2004, 19~24쪽</span></span></span></p><div class="buttons-bottom center jinboblog-i-like-this-buttons"><a class="button-jinboblog" href="javascript:void(0);" title="스크랩으로 글 링크를 저장하세요" onclick="recommend('4942',7,'/iscralee','');"><img src="/plugins/../jplugins/ILikeThis/images/mini_chuchon.png" alt="진보블로그 공감 버튼" /></a><a class="button-twitter" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.jinbo.net%2Fiscralee%2F7+%22%ED%8F%89%EC%9D%98%ED%9A%8C%EC%A3%BC%EC%9D%98%20%EB%B9%84%ED%8C%90%22" target="_blank" title="트위터로 리트윗합니다"><img src="/plugins/../jplugins/ILikeThis/images/twitter.png" alt="트위터로 리트윗하기" /></a><a class="button-facebook" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.jinbo.net%2Fiscralee%2F7&t=%ED%8F%89%EC%9D%98%ED%9A%8C%EC%A3%BC%EC%9D%98%20%EB%B9%84%ED%8C%90" target="_blank" title="페이스북에 공유합니다"><img src="/plugins/../jplugins/ILikeThis/images/facebook.png" alt="페이스북에 공유하기" /></a><a class="button-delicious" href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.jinbo.net%2Fiscralee%2F7&title=%ED%8F%89%EC%9D%98%ED%9A%8C%EC%A3%BC%EC%9D%98%20%EB%B9%84%ED%8C%90','delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;" title="딜리셔스에 북마크합니다"><img src="/plugins/../jplugins/ILikeThis/images/delicious.png" alt="딜리셔스에 북마크" /></a></div><p><strong><a href="http://blog.jinbo.net/iscralee/7?commentInput=true#entry7WriteComment">댓글 쓰기</a></strong></p>평의회 공산주의와 볼세비즘 비판 자유로운 영혼http://blog.jinbo.net/iscralee/62010-05-17T17:28:32+09:002010-05-17T17:28:32+09:00<!--FCKeditor--><p><a name="[문서의 처음]"></a></p>
<p style="font-size: 24pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: large"><span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: #000000; line-height: 51px; font-family: 한양견고딕,한컴돋움; letter-spacing: 0px; text-align: justify">평의회 공산주의와 볼세비즘 비판 </span></span></span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">- 카요 브렌델 1999</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">1.</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">“중앙 지도력이 올바른 방식으로 생산되어진 모든 것들을 분배할 수 있다고 상상해 보자. 이러한 사실이 유지된다할지라도, 생산자는 생산의 기계류를 마음대로 할 수는 없을 것이다. 이러한 기계류는 그들의 것이 아니다. 그것은 그들을 좌절시키는데 사용될 것이다. 불가피한 결론은 현존하는 지도력을 반대하는 그러한 집단들이 힘으로 억눌려지는 것이 될 것이다. 중앙 경제 권력은 동시에 정치적 권력 또한 장악할 것이다. 다양한 방식으로 제기된 정치적 문제나 경제적 문제에 대한 어떤 반대의 생각이 어떠한 가능한 수단으로 억압될 것이다. 이것이 의미하는 바는 맑스가 규정했던 자유롭고 평등한 생산자의 연합 대신에, 이전에 아무도 본 적이 없는 교정시설(노역장)일 것이다.” </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">이러한 인용은 70년 전이 지난 오래된 텍스트를 자유롭게 옮겨다 놓은 것으로, 1917년 러시아 10월 혁명 이후의 생산관계가 맑스와 엥엘스가 이해한 공산주의와 아무런 상관도 없다는 것을 설명하고 있다. 동시에 그렇게 인용된 팜플렛은 30년대의 테러를 앞에 두고 출판되었다. 그것은 단순히 예언이었다. 소비에트 사회에 대한 비판을 불러온 정치적 사건은 없었다. 이러한 비판은 경제적인 분석에서 제기되었다. 스탈린주의가 발생한 기반은 국가자본주의적 착취에 속하는 경제적 체계의 정치적 표현으로 이해된다. 이것은 단지 스탈린주의만을 비판하는 것이 아니다. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">그렇게 언급한 집단은 1차 세계대전 이후 발생한 그룹들에 속한 저자들의 텍스트이며, 팜플렛의 의미는 옳았다. 이러한 경향은 사회민주주의 뿐 만 아니라 볼세비즘에 대한 날카로운 비판을 특징으로 한다. 노동자계급의 일상의 경험들을 세밀하게 분석한 그룹이 바로 이 집단이었다. 그래서 그 집단은 계급투쟁에 대한 새로운 사고로 나아간다. 그 경향은 사회민주주의와 볼세비즘을 ‘오래된 노동자운동’으로 규정하고, 이와 반대하여 ‘노동자계급의 새로운 운동’을 주장한다. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">가장 초기에 이러한 경향의 대표자들은 독일과 네덜란드 맑스주의자였는데, 그들은 사회민주주의 좌파에 속했다. 그들은 오래 지속되었던 개량주의에 맞선 투쟁의 과정에서, 사회민주주의에 더욱더 비판적이게 되었다. 이러한 경향의 가장 잘 알려진 두 명의 네덜란드인은 안톤 판네쿡(1872-1960)과 헤르만 고터(1864-1927)이며, 두 명의 독일인은 칼 스로더Karl Schroder(1884-1950)과 오토 륄레Otto Ruhle(1874-1943)였다. 최근에는 매우 젊은 폴 매틱Paul Mattick(1904-1980)이 중요한 이론가의 일원이 되었다. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">판네쿡의 생각은 철학에 대한 맑스주의적 반성의 세기의 전환기 이후에 잠깐 주의를 끌었다. 1906년부터 제 1차 세계대전이 발발할 때까지 그는 독일에서 활동하였다. 처음에는 독일사회민주당 당연수원의 교사로 활동하였다가 독일로부터 추방의 위기에 몰렸다. 그는 브레멘에서 다양한 좌파문건은 썼다. 판네쿡이 브레멘에 있는 동안, 항만 노동자의 아주 중요한 비공인파업(wildcat strike)을 목격하게 된다. 이러한 경험이 그의 계급투쟁에 대한 사상과 맑스주의에 대한 해석에 영향을 주었다. 결과적으로 그는 볼세비키이론과 조직, 전략, 정책을 아주 이른 시기에 거부하게 된다. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">오토 륄레는 독일노동운동에서 어떤 경향으로 자신을 정립한 적이 없다. 그러나 그는 노동자계급의 전반적 이해를 망각해 본적이 없다. 판네쿡처럼 그도 1920년대 볼세비즘을 거부한다. 그는 프롤레타리아트혁명이 부르주아혁명과 완전히 다른 어떤 것이며, 그 결과로 프롤레타리아트 혁명은 완전히 다른 조직의 형태를 요구한다고 정립한 최초의 인물 중의 하나이다. 이러한 이유로 프롤레타리아트혁명은 당에 의해 이루어질 것이라는 궤변을 그는 거부한다. 그가 이렇게 말한다. “혁명은 당의 과업이 아니다. 정치적으로, 경제적으로 전체 노동자계급의 과업인 것이다.” </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">이러한 생각들은 더욱 더 세밀하게 되어가고, 그 경향의 성격들은 평의회 공산주의로 알려지게 되었다. 평의회 공산주의는 20세기 초반의 독일과 러시아의 경험에 기반하고 있으며, 평의회민주주의에 대한 방어하고, 당의 권력을 거부한다. 그것은 볼세비키와 볼세비즘으로부터 자신을 구분하였고, 자신을 공산주의자라고 주장하였다. 그럼에도 불구하고 그것은 그것의 기원에서 그 의견들로부터 아주 멀리 나갈 만큼 이후에도 발전되었다. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">2. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">시작할 때는, 평의회공산주의는 레닌주의와 다르지 않았다. 그러나 륄레는 제 3인터네셔널의 당들을 공산주의자 중의 하나로 간주하지 않았다. 몇 년 이후에 평의회 공산주의자들은 스스로를 더욱 더 분명히 볼세비즘과 구별하게 되었다. 이른바 10월 혁명은 짜리즘을 붕괴시켰고, 봉건관계를 끝장내고, 자본주의적인 혁명 중에 하나의 방식임이 분명했다. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">평의회 공산주의자는 더 나아갔다. 그들은 러시아 경제가 임노동에 기초해 있다는 사실을 지적하였다. 그것은 노동력이 상품인 경제로 일컬어질 수 있으며, 잉여가치 생산과 노동자에 대한 착취만을 원하는 경제로 얘기될 수 있었다. 생산수단의 전취자로서 잉여가치가 사적인 자본가에게 나오느냐 국가에게서 나오느냐는 것은 문제가 되지 않는다. 평의회 공산주의자들은 맑스가 생산수단의 국유화는 사회주의와 상관없다는 것을 기억해냈다. 평의회 공산주의자들은 러시아에서의 생산이 계급적 사적 자본주의에서 존재하는 동일한 법칙이 종속되어 있다는 사실을 지적하였다. 맑스가 말했듯이, 착취는 임노동이 더 이상 존재하지 않을 때 종식될 수 있는 것이었다. 평의회 공산주의자들은 모스크바를 언급하면서, 공산주의가 더 이상 아닌 것으로 설명했다. 평의회 공산주의와 볼세비즘 사이의 구별은 더욱 더 분명해 졌고, 더 완전해 졌다. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">3. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">이제까지 얘기한 것을 평의회 공산주의의 스탈린주의에 대한 독특한 비판이라는 의미로 이해해서는 안된다. 그것은 볼세비즘 일반에 대한 비판이다. 평의회 공산주의는 스탈린주의를 10월 혁명의 결실을 제거한 일종의 반혁명으로 이해하지 않는다. 오히려 스탈린주의는 러시아에서 자본주의의 문을 열게 한 10월 혁명의 결실이었다. 스탈린은 볼세비즘과 볼세비키 혁명의 계승자이다. 이러한 이론의 전개는 사회발전의 경우처럼 매우 천천히 진행되었다. 그러한 과정에서 평의회 공산주의자들은 그들의 생각과 자신의 실천을 바꾸어 나갔다. 최초로 독일과 폴란드에서 평의회 공산주의자 당이 설립되었다. 이전에 당들은 노동계급의 과업이 아니라고 언급했던 륄레와 같은 의견과 반대되는 경우이다. 그러나 륄레는 이러한 당들로서 조직을 완전히 새로운 성격으로 보았다. 더 이상 당이 아닌 당으로 말이다. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">그러나 1924년 륄레는 다른 말을 연설한다. “하나의 당이 프롤레타리아적 단어 상의 의미로 볼 때, 혁명적 성격을 가지고 있다는 것은 불합리하다. 그것의 혁명적 성격은 부르주아적 의미에서만 그러하다. 단지 봉건제가 자본주의로 변할 때 말이다.” 그는 완전히 올바랐으며, 그러한 이유로 이른바 불합리성은 10 년간 프롤레타리아트의 무대에서 사라졌다. 거기에는 약간의 예외가 있었으며, 2차 세계대전이후로 곧 그 표현들은 더 이상 사용되지 않았다. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">동시에, 평의회 공산주의자들은 성장하였다. 그들은 러시아 혁명이 부르주아 혁명에 다름아니다는 것을 배웠으며, 러시아 경제가 국가자본주의에 다름아니다는 것을 배웠다. 그들은 새로운 연구를 충분히 성숙시킬 만큼 과업들에 대한 더 분명한 이해를 갖고 있었다. 그 외의 것들은 이전에 분명히 분석되지 못했지만, 이제는 더 명확히 올바르게 이해되었다. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">이러한 관점에서 가장 중요한 분석이 판네쿡에 의해 1938년에 완성되었다. 그는 레닌의 철학에 대한 분석의 팜플렛을 출판하였으며, 볼세비즘에 대한 더 심오한 분석을 생산했다. 판네쿡은 레닌의 맑스주의가 하나의 신화에 다름 아니며, 실질적인 맑스주의와 대립한다는 사실을 지적하였다. 동시에 그는 그 이유를 설명한다. “러시아에서 짜르주의에 반대한 투쟁은, 오래전 유럽에서 봉건제에 반대한 투쟁과 닮아 있었다. 러시아의 교회와 종교는 현존권력을 도왔다. 그런 이유로 종교에 반대한 투쟁은 사회적 필연성이었다. 이러한 이유로 레닌은 역사유물론을 18세기 프랑스 부르주아유물론과 거의 구분되지 않게 사고했다. 유물론이란 교회와 종교에 반대한 영혼의 무기로 사용되었던 것이다. 그와 같은 방식으로 혁명 전 러시아의 사회적 관계와 혁명적 프랑스의 사회적 관계의 유사성도 사고할 수 있다. 평의회 공산주의자들은 레닌과 그의 당의 구성원들이 스스로를 자코벵이라는 이름으로 불렀다는 사실을 지적했다. 그것들은 러시아 부르주아혁명에서 그들의 당은 프랑스의 자코벵과 같은 기능을 갖고 있다는 것을 의미한다. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">1917년 10월에서 5달이 지난 1918년 3월 볼세비즘은 이미 최소화된 권력이었던 소비에트를 야만적으로 공격하는데, 그것은 - 평의회 공산주의자들이 말하는 것처럼 - 10월 혁명의 논리적 귀결이었다. 소비에트는 국가자본주의적 생산관계의 정치적 상부구조로는 적합한 시스템이 아니었다. </span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: ">평의회 공산주의가 말하고자 했던 공산주의는 그러한 시스템과 완전히 다른 것이었다. 당 독재는 임노동의 폐절과 노동착취의 절멸에 적합한 것이 아니다. 생산자들이 자유롭고 평등한 사회는 생산자의 민주주의와 다를 바 없는 것이다.</span></p>
<p style="font-size: 10pt; margin: 0px; color: #000000; text-indent: 0px; line-height: 160%; font-family: "><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #000000; line-height: 21px; font-family: "><br />
</span></p><div class="buttons-bottom center jinboblog-i-like-this-buttons"><a class="button-jinboblog" href="javascript:void(0);" title="스크랩으로 글 링크를 저장하세요" onclick="recommend('4942',6,'/iscralee','');"><img src="/plugins/../jplugins/ILikeThis/images/mini_chuchon.png" alt="진보블로그 공감 버튼" /></a><a class="button-twitter" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.jinbo.net%2Fiscralee%2F6+%22%ED%8F%89%EC%9D%98%ED%9A%8C%20%EA%B3%B5%EC%82%B0%EC%A3%BC%EC%9D%98%EC%99%80%20%20%EB%B3%BC%EC%84%B8%EB%B9%84%EC%A6%98%20%EB%B9%84%ED%8C%90%20%22" target="_blank" title="트위터로 리트윗합니다"><img src="/plugins/../jplugins/ILikeThis/images/twitter.png" alt="트위터로 리트윗하기" /></a><a class="button-facebook" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.jinbo.net%2Fiscralee%2F6&t=%ED%8F%89%EC%9D%98%ED%9A%8C%20%EA%B3%B5%EC%82%B0%EC%A3%BC%EC%9D%98%EC%99%80%20%20%EB%B3%BC%EC%84%B8%EB%B9%84%EC%A6%98%20%EB%B9%84%ED%8C%90%20" target="_blank" title="페이스북에 공유합니다"><img src="/plugins/../jplugins/ILikeThis/images/facebook.png" alt="페이스북에 공유하기" /></a><a class="button-delicious" href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.jinbo.net%2Fiscralee%2F6&title=%ED%8F%89%EC%9D%98%ED%9A%8C%20%EA%B3%B5%EC%82%B0%EC%A3%BC%EC%9D%98%EC%99%80%20%20%EB%B3%BC%EC%84%B8%EB%B9%84%EC%A6%98%20%EB%B9%84%ED%8C%90%20','delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;" title="딜리셔스에 북마크합니다"><img src="/plugins/../jplugins/ILikeThis/images/delicious.png" alt="딜리셔스에 북마크" /></a></div><p><strong><a href="http://blog.jinbo.net/iscralee/6?commentInput=true#entry6WriteComment">댓글 쓰기</a></strong></p>반혁명의 산물 반혁명의 앞잡이 트로츠키주의자유로운 영혼http://blog.jinbo.net/iscralee/32010-01-13T18:01:27+09:002010-01-13T18:01:27+09:00<!--FCKeditor--><h1 class="title" align="left"><font color="#a40001" size="5">반혁명의 산물 반혁명의 앞잡이 트로츠키주의</font></h1>
<h1 class="title" align="left"><font size="5">Trotskyism: Prodct and agent of counterrevolution</font></h1>
<div class="field-item"><a class="thickbox" title="Trotsky gives lesson in Party discipline" target="_blank" rel="library" href="http://www.libcom.org/files/images/library/trotsky-punishing-two-sisters.jpg"><img alt="" width="203" src="http://www.libcom.org/files/imagecache/article/files/images/library/trotsky-punishing-two-sisters.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="field-item"><strong><font color="#a40001">ICG는 트로츠키주의의 반혁명적 궤도를 밝혀낸다.</font></strong></div>
<div class="field field-type-text field-field-introduction">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item">
<p><strong>The ICG traces the counter-revolutionary trajectory of Trotskyism.</strong></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="content">(<span style="font-style: italic">Some grammatical corrections have been made to the original.</span>)<br />
<br />
</p>
<p class="content">Trotsky is often considered as Stalin's enemy. In fact he was Stalin's competitor. Let's explain:</p>
<p class="content">The opposition (that later became trotskyist) appeared in 26-27 as a (quite late) reaction to the counterrevolutionary position of "socialism in one country". But this position of Trotsky only became a theoretical position in so far as Trotsky always defended capitalism in Russia and everywhere else in the world. Trotskyists defended the participation in the so-called "second" world war and in all the following ones. If in '27, Trotsky's reaction to the Canton and Shanghai massacre of the insurrectionary proletarians was correct, in total antagonism with this position, he supported the massacres of the proletarians in Spain and critically supported all the left bourgeoisie initiatives.</p>
<p class="content">Inside the Third International he attacked the Left, calling them "anarchists" or "adventurous", he lead the crushing of the proletarian insurrection in Kronstadt, he imposed the militarisation of labour, and praised the Taylor system (increasing of exploitation of human labour),... In two words: Trotsky always supported the development of capitalism. He never realised/understood the transformation/liquidation of the proletarian organs of 1917 into organs of management of capital. He was blind to the capitalist nature of the relations of production in Russia.</p>
<p class="content">The communist revolution means the destruction of production, value, the abolition of wage labour, total suppression of democracy, be it called popular, direct, liberal or libertarian.</p>
<p class="content">Trotsky foughts against the participation of the communists in the Kuomintang (1923) and against the policy of the Third International which praised the alliance with the Chinese bourgeoisie against the insurrectionary proletarians. Correct! But he did not make a principle out of this position, he did not consider this position as something true always and everywhere, as an important point of the communist programme: anti-frontism.</p>
<p class="content">In 1933, he wanted all the groups of the trotskyist "opposition" to enter the bourgeois social-democrat parties (the same that he condemned in 1920) to make "entryism". That is equivalent to trying to wake up a dead body. We consider entryism is trying to conquer a cadaver from the inside! Trotskyist organisations made entryism inside the organisations created under the Vichy regime in France in order to "organize revolutionary nucleus"!!!</p>
<p class="content">Our criticisms globally concern the critical support to parliament, ministries, elections,... the participation to imperialist conflicts supporting the "weakest" imperialism (Russia, Tito, Ben Bella, Khomeyni, Allende, Ho Chi Min,...) supporting national liberation struggles.</p>
<p class="content">We denounce the theory defending the existence of "degenerated worker States". According to this point of view, in those States, the means of production are "fair", and the means of distribution are "unfair". We consider this as total bullshit! The production determines the essence, the very nature of the distribution and all the ideological forms that justify the later. In Russia as well as everywhere in the world economy is based on the law of value, therefore, what is the difference? Nationalisation? State property? No because it does not attack property. On the one hand, the bourgeois property of the means of production is reinforced and more centralised, on the other hand there is no change in the essence of the relations of production.</p>
<p class="content">We also denounce the theory of the permanent revolution according to which "the accomplishment of democratic tasks in bourgeois backward countries "directly" leads them to the dictatorship of the proletariat which puts the socialist tasks on the agenda." So making the bourgeois revolution would automatically lead to making the proletarian revolution that would put the finishing touches to the bourgeois revolution. That is how the bourgeois revolution could "permanently" give birth to the proletarian revolution, just as if the latter was a simple and more or less mechanical extension, continuation of the first.</p>
<p class="content">Proletarian revolution will destroy democracy, impose the proletarian class power in order to abolish all classes and all powers. The fact that capital always developed by poles of concentration that moved along the centuries does not contradict the fact that it is a worldwide relation of production and that the proletarians have no country to defend, no homeland to die for. National liberation, the "oppressed nations", the "socialist countries" are bourgeois ideologies to prevent class war!</p>
<p class="content">And the last point of the trotskyist theory we denounce: the transitional programme.</p>
<p class="content">For Trotsky there were two programs: a minimum programme (economical demands, immediate interests) and a maximum programme (political demands, historical interests), and between them, there is a bridge: the transitional program, the "preparation to the taking of the power". This transitional program is the basis of the 4th International. It says that the productive forces of humanity have stopped growing and that the objective basis of capital is ready for revolution. What is missing is the subjective factor, i.e: the revolutionary leadership. That is the role of the 4th International. Separation between immediate and historical interests of the proletariat, separation between the "masses" and the "leaders", the bellies and the heads, the oppressed and the imperialist countries, the subjective and the objective conditions, these counterrevolutionary theories serve as a life-guard for capital.</p>
<p class="content">For us the transition between capital and communism will be the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the transitional programme can only be the tasks necessary to dictatorially destroy capital.</p><div class="buttons-bottom center jinboblog-i-like-this-buttons"><a class="button-jinboblog" href="javascript:void(0);" title="스크랩으로 글 링크를 저장하세요" onclick="recommend('4942',3,'/iscralee','');"><img src="/plugins/../jplugins/ILikeThis/images/mini_chuchon.png" alt="진보블로그 공감 버튼" /></a><a class="button-twitter" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.jinbo.net%2Fiscralee%2F3+%22%EB%B0%98%ED%98%81%EB%AA%85%EC%9D%98%20%EC%82%B0%EB%AC%BC%20%EB%B0%98%ED%98%81%EB%AA%85%EC%9D%98%20%EC%95%9E%EC%9E%A1%EC%9D%B4%20%ED%8A%B8%EB%A1%9C%EC%B8%A0%ED%82%A4%EC%A3%BC%EC%9D%98%22" target="_blank" title="트위터로 리트윗합니다"><img src="/plugins/../jplugins/ILikeThis/images/twitter.png" alt="트위터로 리트윗하기" /></a><a class="button-facebook" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.jinbo.net%2Fiscralee%2F3&t=%EB%B0%98%ED%98%81%EB%AA%85%EC%9D%98%20%EC%82%B0%EB%AC%BC%20%EB%B0%98%ED%98%81%EB%AA%85%EC%9D%98%20%EC%95%9E%EC%9E%A1%EC%9D%B4%20%ED%8A%B8%EB%A1%9C%EC%B8%A0%ED%82%A4%EC%A3%BC%EC%9D%98" target="_blank" title="페이스북에 공유합니다"><img src="/plugins/../jplugins/ILikeThis/images/facebook.png" alt="페이스북에 공유하기" /></a><a class="button-delicious" href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.jinbo.net%2Fiscralee%2F3&title=%EB%B0%98%ED%98%81%EB%AA%85%EC%9D%98%20%EC%82%B0%EB%AC%BC%20%EB%B0%98%ED%98%81%EB%AA%85%EC%9D%98%20%EC%95%9E%EC%9E%A1%EC%9D%B4%20%ED%8A%B8%EB%A1%9C%EC%B8%A0%ED%82%A4%EC%A3%BC%EC%9D%98','delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;" title="딜리셔스에 북마크합니다"><img src="/plugins/../jplugins/ILikeThis/images/delicious.png" alt="딜리셔스에 북마크" /></a></div><p><strong><a href="http://blog.jinbo.net/iscralee/3?commentInput=true#entry3WriteComment">댓글 쓰기</a></strong></p>Bolshevism and Stalinism자유로운 영혼http://blog.jinbo.net/iscralee/22010-01-13T17:58:16+09:002010-01-13T17:58:16+09:00<!--FCKeditor--><div id="espresso_editor_view" style="font-size: 9pt">
<p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 16pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"><strong><font size="2"><font face="Arial"><o:p><span style="font-size: 16pt">Bolshevism and Stalinism</span></o:p></font></font></strong></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"><strong><font size="2"><font face="Arial"><o:p></o:p></font></font></strong></span> </p>
<p><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"><strong><font size="2"><font face="Arial"><o:p>Paul Mattick - 1947</o:p></font></font></strong></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"><strong><font size="2"><font face="Arial"><o:p></o:p></font></font></strong></span> </p>
<p><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"><strong><font size="2"><font face="Arial"><o:p></o:p></font></font></strong></span> </p>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"><font size="2"><font face="Arial"><o:p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">The alleged purpose of Trotsky's biography of Stalin<sup>1 </sup>is to show "how a personality of this sort was formed, and how it came to power by usurpation of the right to such an exceptional role". The real purpose of the book, however, is to show why Trotsky lost the power position he temporarily occupied and why his rather than Stalin's name should follow Lenin's. Prior to Lenin's death it had always been 'Lenin and Trotsky' ; Stalin's name had invariably been near or at the end of any list of prominent Bolsheviks. On one occasion Lenin even suggested that he put his own signature second to Trotsky's. In brief, the book helps to explain why Trotsky was of the opinion "that he was the natural successor to Lenin" and in effect is a biography of both Stalin and Trotsky.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">All beginnings are small, of course, and the Bolshevism of Lenin and Trotsky differs from present-day Stalinism just as Hitler's brown terror of 1933 differed from the Nazism of World War II. That there is nothing in the arsenal of Stalinism that cannot also be found in that of Lenin and Trotsky is attested to by the earlier writings of Trotsky himself.<sup>2<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></sup>For example Trotsky, like Stalin, introduced compulsory labour service as a 'socialist principle' . He, too, was convinced "that not one serious socialist will begin to deny to the Labour State the right to lay its hands upon the worker who refuses to execute his labour power". It was Trotsky who hurried to stress the 'socialistic character of inequality, for, as he said, "those workers who do more for the general interest than others receive the right to a greater quantity of the social product than the lazy, the careless, and the disorganisers". It was his opinion that everything must be done to "assist the development of rivalry in the sphere of production".</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">Of course, all this was conceived as the 'socialist principle' of the 'transformation period'. It was dictated by objective difficulties in the way of full socialisation. There was not the desire but the need to strengthen party dictatorship until it led to the abolishment of even those freedoms of activity which, in one fashion or another, had been granted by the bourgeois state. However, Stalin, too, can offer the excuse of necessity.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">In order to find other arguments against Stalinism than his personal dislike for a competitor in intra-party struggles, Trotsky must discover and construct political differences between himself and Stalin, and between Stalin and Lenin in order to support his assertion that without Stalin things would have been different in Russia and elsewhere.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">There could not have been any 몋heoretic?differences between Lenin and Stalin, as the only theoretical work bearing the name of the latter had been inspired and supervised by Lenin. And if Stalin's 'nature craved' the centralised party machine, it was Lenin who constructed the perfect machine for him, so that on that score, too, no differences could arise. In fact, as long as Lenin was active, Stalin was no trouble to him, however troublesome he may have been to 'The Number Two Bolshevik'.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">Still, in order for Trotsky to explain the 'Soviet Thermidor', there must be a difference between Leninism and Stalinism, provided, of course, there was such a Thermidor. On this point, Trotsky has brought forth various ideas as to when it took place, but in his Stalin biography he ignores the question of time in favour of the simple statement that it had something to do with the "increasing privileges for the bureaucracy". However, this only brings us back to the early period of the Bolshevik dictatorship which found Lenin and Trotsky engaged in creating the state bureaucracy and increasing its efficiency by increasing its privileges.<o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"> <o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"><strong>Competitors for Power</strong><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"> </span></font><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">The fact that the relentless struggle for position came into the open only after Lenin's death suggests something other than the Soviet Thermidor. It simply indicates that by that time the Bolshevik state was of sufficient strength, or was in a position, to disregard to a certain degree both the Russian masses and the international bourgeoisie. The developing bureaucracy began to feel sure that Russia was theirs for keeps; the fight for the plums of the Revolution entered its more general and more serious stage.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">All adversaries in this struggle stressed the need of dictatorship in view of the unsolved internal frictions between 'workers'<sup> </sup>and 'peasants', the economic and technological backwardness of the country as a whole, and the constant danger of attack from the outside. But within this setting of dictatorship, all sorts of arguments could be raised. The power-struggle within the developing ruling class expressed itself in policy-proposals either for or against the interests of the peasants, either for or against the limitation of factory councils, either for or against an offensive policy on the international front. High-sounding theories were expounded with regard to the estimation of the peasantry, the relationship between bureaucracy and revolution, the question of party generations, etc. and reached their climax in the Trotsky-Stalin controversy on the 'Permanent Revolution' and the theory of 'Socialism in one Country'</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">It is quite possible that the debaters believed their own phrases; yet, despite their theoretical differentiations, whenever they acted upon a real situation they all acted alike: In order to suit their own needs, they naturally expressed identical things in different terms. If Trotsky rushes to the front - to all fronts in fact - he merely defends the fatherland. But Stalin "is attracted by the front, because here for the first time he could work with the most finished of all the administrative machines, the military machine" for which, by the way, Trotsky claims all credit. If Trotsky pleads for discipline, he shows his 'iron hand'; if Stalin does the same, he deals with a 'heavy hand'. If Trotsky's bloody suppression of the Kronstadt Rebellion was a 'tragic necessity' Stalin's suppression of the Georgian independence movement is in the manner of a "great-Russian Russifier, riding roughshod over the rights of his own people as a nation". And vice versa: suggestions made by Trotsky are called false and counter-revolutionary by Stalin's henchmen; when carried out tinder Stalin's auspices, they become additional proof of the great leader's wisdom.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">To understand Bolshevism, and in a narrower sense Stalinism, it is not enough to follow the superficial and often silly controversies between Stalinists and Trotskyites. After all, the Russian Revolution embraces mote than just the Bolshevik Party. It was not even initiated by organised political groups but by spontaneous reactions of the masses to the breakdown of an already precarious economic system in the wake of military defeat. The February upheavals 'started' with hunger riots in market places, protest strikes in factories, and the spontaneous declaration of solidarity with the rioters on the part of the soldiers. But all spontaneous movements in modern history have been accompanied by organised forces. As soon as the collapse of Czarism was' imminent, organisations came to the fore with directives and definite political goals.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">If prior to the Revolution Lenin had stressed organisation rather than spontaneity, it was because of the retarded Russian conditions, which gave the spontaneous movements a backward character. Even the politically advanced groups offered only limited programmes. The industrial workers desired capitalistic reforms similar to those enjoyed by the workers in more capitalistically advanced countries. The petty-bourgeoisie and important layers of the capitalist class wanted a Western bourgeois democracy. The peasants desired land in a capitalist agriculture. Though progressive for Czarist Russia, these demands were of the essence of bourgeois revolution.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">The new liberalistic February government attempted to continue the war. But it was the conditions of war against which the masses were rebelling. All promised reforms within the Russian setting of that time and within the existing imperialistic power relationships were doomed to remain empty phrases; there was no way of directing the spontaneous movements into those channels desired by the government. In new upsurges the Bolsheviks came into power not by way of a second revolution but by a forced change of government. This seizure of power was made easy by the lack of interest that the restless masses were showing in the existing government. The October coup, as Lenin said, "was easier than lifting a feather". The final victory was "practically achieved by default . . . Not a single regiment rose to defend Russian democracy . . . The struggle for supreme power over an empire that comprised one-sixth of the terrestrial globe was decided between amazingly small forces on both sides in the provinces as well as in the two capital clues."</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">The Bolsheviks did not try to restore the old conditions in order to reform them, but declared themselves in favour of the concrete results of the conceptually backward spontaneous movements: the ending of the war, the workers' control of industry, the expropriation of the ruling classes and the division of land. And so they stayed in power.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">The pre-revolutionary demands of the Russian masses had been backward for two reasons: they had long been realised in the main capitalist nations, and they could no longer be realised in view of existing world conditions. At a time when the concentration and centralisation process of world capitalism had brought about the decline of bourgeois democracy almost everywhere, it was no longer possible to initiate it afresh in Russia. If laissez faire democracy was out of the question, so were all those reforms in capital-labour relations usually related to social legislation and trade-unionism. Capitalist agriculture, too, had passed beyond the breaking up of feudal estates and production for a capitalist market to the industrialisation of agriculture and its consequent incorporation into the concentration process of capital.<o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"> <o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"><strong>The Bokheviks and Mass Spontaneity</strong><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"> </span></font><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">The Bolsheviks did not claim responsibility for the Revolution. They gave full credit to the </span></font><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">spontaneous movements. Of course, they underlined the obvious fact that Russia's previous history, which included the Bolshevik party, had lent some kind of vague revolutionary consciousness to the unorganised masses and they were not backward about asserting that without their leadership the course of the Revolution would have been different and most probably would have led to a counter-revolution. "Had the Bolsheviks not seized power," writes Trotsky, "the world would have had a Russian name for Fascism five years before the Rome."</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">But counter-revolution attempts on the part of the traditional powers failed not because of any conscious direction of the spontaneous movements, not because of Lenin's "sharp eyes, which surveyed the situation correctly", but because of the fact that these movements could not be diverted from their own course. If one wants to use the term at all, the 'counter-revolution' possible in the Russia of 1917 was that inherent in the Revolution itself, that is, in the opportunity it offered the Bolsheviks to restore a centrally-directed social order for the perpetuation of the capitalistic divorce of the workers from the means of production and the consequent restoration of Russia as a competing imperialist power.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">During the revolution, the interests of the rebelling masses and of the Bolsheviks merged to a remarkable degree. Beyond the temporary merger, there also existed a deep unity between the socialising concepts of the Bolsheviks and the consequences of the spontaneous movements. Too 'backward' for socialism but also too 'advanced' for liberal capitalism, the Revolution could end only in that consistent form of capitalism which the Bolsheviks considered a pre-condition of socialism, namely, state-capitalism.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">By identifying themselves with the spontaneous movement they could not control, the Bolsheviks gained control over this movement as soon as it had spent itself in the realisation of its immediate goals. There were many such goals differently reached in different territories. Various layers of the peasantry satisfied, or failed to satisfy, divergent needs and desires. Their interests, however, had no real connection with those of the proletariat. The working class itself was split into various groups with a variety of specific needs and general plans. The petty-bourgeoisie had still other problems to solve. In brief, there was a spontaneous unity against the conditions of Czarism and war, but there was no unity in regard to immediate goals and future policy. It was not too difficult for the Bolsheviks to utilise this social division for building up their own power, which finally became stronger than the whole of society because it never faced society as a whole.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">Like the other groups which asserted themselves within the revolution, the Bolsheviks, too, pressed to gain their particular end: the control of government. This goal reached farther than those aspired to by the others. It involved a never-ending struggle, a continuous winning and re-winning of power positions. Peasant groups settled down after dividing the land, workers returned to the factories as wage labourers, soldiers, unable to roam the countrysides forever, returned to the life of peasant and worker, but for the Bolsheviks the struggle only really began with the success of the Revolution. Like all governments, the Bolshevik regime involves submission of all existing social layers to its authority. Slowly centralising all power and control into their hands, the Bolsheviks were soon able to dictate policy. Once more Russia became thoroughly organised in the interests of a special class - the class of privilege in the emerging system of state-capitalism.<o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"> </span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"> <o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"><strong>The Party 'Machine'</strong><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">All this has nothing to do with Stalinism and 'Thermidor' but represents Lenin's and Trotsky's policy from the very day they came to power. Reporting to the Sixth Congress of Soviets in 1918, Trotsky complained that "Not all Soviet workers have understood that our administration has been centralised and that all orders issued from above must be final... We shall be pitiless with those Soviet workers who have not yet understood; we will remove them, cast them out of our ranks, pull them up with repressions." Trotsky now claims that these words were aimed at Stalin who did not co-ordinate his war-activity properly and we are willing to believe him. But how much more directly must they have been aimed at all those who were not even 'second-rate' but had no rating at all in the Soviet hierarchy. There already existed, as Trotsky relates, "a sharp cleavage between the classes in motion and the interests of the party machines. Even the Bolshevik Party cadres, who enjoyed the benefit of exceptional revolutionary training were definitely inclined to disregard the masses and to identify their own special interests with the interests of the machine on the very day after the monarchy was overthrown."</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">Trotsky holds, of course, that the dangers implied in this situation were averted by Lenin's vigilance and by objective conditions which made the "masses more revolutionary than the Party, and the Party more revolutionary than its machine". But the machine was headed by Lenin. Even before the Revolution, Trotsky points out, the Central Committee of the Party "functioned almost regularly and was entirely in the hands of Lenin". And even more so after the Revolution. In the spring of 1918 the "ideal of 'democratic centralism' suffered further reverses, for in effect the power within both the government and the Party became concentrated in the hands of Lenin and the immediate retinue of Bolshevik leaders who did not openly disagree with him and carried out his wishes". As the bureaucracy made headway nevertheless, the emerging Stalinist machine must have been the result of an oversight on the part of Lenin.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">To distinguish between the ruler of the machine and the machine on the one hand, and between the machine and the masses on the other implies that only the masses and its top-leader were truly revolutionary, and that both Lenin and the revolutionary masses were later betrayed by Stalin's machine which, so to speak, made itself independent. Although Trotsky needs such distinctions to satisfy his own political interests, they have no basis in fact. Until his death - disregarding occasional remarks against the dangers of bureaucratisation, which for the Bolsheviks are the equivalent of the bourgeois politicians' occasional crusades for a balanced budget - Lenin never once came out against the Bolshevik party machine and its leadership, that is, against himself. Whatever policy was decided upon received Lenin's blessing as long as he was at the helm of the machine; and he died holding that position.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">Lenin's 'democratic' notions are legendary. Of course state-capitalism under Lenin was different from state-capitalism under Stalin because the dictatorial powers of the latter were greater - thanks to Lenin's attempt to build up his own. That Lenin's rule was less terroristic than Stalin's is debatable. Like Stalin, Lenin catalogued all his victims under the heading 'counter-revolutionary? Without comparing the statistics of those tortured and killed under both regimes, we will admit that the Bolshevik regime under Lenin and Trotsky was not strong enough to carry through such Stalinist measures as enforced collectivisation and slave-labour camps as a main economic and political policy. It was not design but weakness which forced Lenin and Trotsky to the so called New Economic Policy, that is, to concessions to private property interests and to a greater lip-service to 'democracy'.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">Bolshevik 'toleration' of such non-bolshevik organisations as the Social Revolutionists in the early phase of Lenin's rule did not spring, as Trotsky asserts, from Lenin's 'democratic' inclinations but from inability to destroy all non-bolshevik organisations at once. The totalitarian features of Lenin's Bolshevism were accumulating at the same rate at which its control and police power grew. That they were forced upon the Bolsheviks by the 'counter-revolutionary' activity of all non-bolshevik labour organisations, as Trotsky maintains, can not of course explain their further increase after the crushing of the various nonconformist organisations. Neither could it explain Lenin's insistence upon the enforcement of totalitarian principle in the extra-Russian organisations of the Communist International.<o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"> <o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"> <o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"><strong>Trotsky, Apologist for Stalinism</strong><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">Unable to blame non-bolshevik organisations entirely for Lenin's dictatorship, Trotsky tells "those theoreticians who attempt to prove that the present totalitarian regime of the U.S.S.R. is due . . . to the ugly nature of bolshevism itself," that they forget the years of Civil War, "which laid an indelible impress on the Soviet Government by virtue of the fact that very many of the administrators, a considerable layer of them, had become accustomed to command and demanded unconditional submission to their orders." Stalin, too, he continues, "was moulded by the environment and circumstances of the Civil War, along with the entire group that later helped him to establish his personal dictatorship". The Civil War, however, was initiated by the international bourgeoisie. And thus the ugly sides of Bolshevism under Lenin, as well as under Stalin, find their chief and final cause in capitalism's enmity to Bolshevism which, if it is a monster, is only a reluctant monster, killing and torturing in mere self-defence.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">And so, if only in a roundabout way, Trotsky's Bolshevism, despite its saturation with hatred for Stalin, leads in the end merely to a defence of Stalinism as the only possible self-defence for Trotsky. This explains the superficiality of the ideological differences between Stalinism and Trotskyism. The impossibility of attacking Stalin without attacking Lenin helps to explain, furthermore, Trotsky's great difficulties as an oppositionist. Trotsky's own past and theories preclude on his part the initiation of a movement to the left of Stalinism and condemned 'Trotskyism' to remain a mere collecting agency for unsuccessful Bolsheviks. As such it could maintain itself outside of Russia because of the ceaseless competitive struggles for power and positions within the so-called 멵ommunist?world-movement. But it could not achieve significance for it had nothing to offer but the replacement of one set 'of~ politicians by another. The Trotskyist defence of Russia in the Second World War was consistent with all the previous policies of this, Stalin's most bitter, but also most loyal, opposition.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">Trotsky's defence of Stalinism does not exhaust itself with showing how the Civil War transformed the Bolsheviks from servants into masters of the working class. He points to the more important fact that it is the "bureaucracy's law of life and death to guard the nationalisation of the means of production and of the land". This means that "in spite of the most monstrous bureaucratic distortions, the class basis of the U.S.S.R. remains proletarian". For a while - we notice - Stalin had Trotsky worried. In 1921, Lenin had been disturbed by the question as to whether the New Economic Policy was merely a 'tactic' or an 'evolution'. Because the NEP released private-capitalistic tendencies, Trotsky saw in the growing Stalinist bureaucracy "nothing else than the first stage of bourgeois restoration". But his worries were unfounded; "the struggle against equality and the establishment of very deep social differentiations has so far been unable to eliminate the socialist consciousness of the masses or the nationalisation of the means of production and the land, which were the basic social conquests of the revolution". Stalin, of course, had nothing to do with this, for "the Russian Thermidor would have undoubtedly opened a new era of bourgeois rule, if that rule had not proved obsolete throughout the world".<o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"> <o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"><strong>The Result: State Capitalism</strong><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">With this last statement of Trotsky's we approach the essence of the matter under discussion. We have said before that the concrete results of the revolution of 1917 were neither socialistic nor bourgeois but state-capitalistic. It was Trotsky's belief that Stalin would destroy the state-capitalist nature of the economy in favour of a bourgeois economy. This was to be the Thermidor. The decay of bourgeois economy all over the world prevented Stalin from bringing this about. All he could do was to introduce the ugly features of his personal dictatorship into that society which had been brought into existence by Lenin and Trotsky. In this way, and despite the fact that Stalin still occupies the Kremlin, Trotskyism has triumphed over Stalinism.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">It all depends on an equation of state-capitalism with socialism. And although some of Trotsky's disciples have recently found it impossible to continue making the equation, Trotsky was bound to it, for it is the beginning and the end of Leninism and, in a wider sense, of the whole of the social-democratic world-movement of which Leninism was only the more realistic part. Realistic, that is, with regard to Russia. What was, and still is, understood by this movement under 'workers' state is governmental rule by the party; what is meant by 'socialism' is the nationalisation of the means of production. By adding control over the economy to the political control of the government the totalitarian rule over all of society emerges in full. The government secures its totalitarian rule by way of the party, which maintains the social hierarchy and is itself a hierarchical institution.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">This idea of 'socialism' is now in the process of becoming discredited,<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>but only because of the experience of Russia and similar if less extensive experiences in other countries. Prior to 1914, what was meant by the seizure of power, either peacefully or violently, was the seizure of the government machinery, replacing a given set of administrators and law-makers with another set. Economically, the 'anarchy' of the capitalistic market was to be replaced by a planned production under the control of the state. As the socialist state would by definition be a 멽ust?state, being itself controlled by the masses by way of the democratic processes, there was no reason to expect that its decisions would run counter to socialistic ideals. This theory was sufficient to organise parts of the working class into more or less powerful parties.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">The theory of socialism boiled down to the demand for centralised economic planning in the interest of all. The centralisation process, inherent in capital-accumulation itself, was regarded as a socialistic tendency. The growing influence of 'labour' within the state-machinery was hailed as a step in the direction of socialism. But actually the centralisation process of capital indicated something else than its self-transformation into social property. It was identical with the destruction of laissez faire economy and therewith with the end of the traditional business-cycle as the regulator of the economy. With the beginning of the twentieth century the character of capitalism changed. From that time on it found itself under permanent crisis conditions which could not be resolved, by the 'automatic' workings of the market. Monopolistic regulations, state-interferences, national policies shifted the burden of the crisis to the capitalistically under-privileged in the world-economy. All 'economic' policy became imperialistic policy, culminating twice in world-wide conflagrations.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">In this situation, to reconstruct a broken-down political and economic system meant to adapt it to these new conditions. The Bolshevik theory of socialisation fitted this need in an admirable way. In order to restore the national power of Russia it was necessary to do in a radical fashion what in the Western nations had been merely an evolutionary process. Even then it' would take time to close the gap between the Russian economy and that of the Western powers. Meanwhile the ideology of the socialist movement served well as protection. The socialist origin of Bolshevism made it particularly fitted for the state-capitalist reconstruction of Russia. Its organisational principles, which had turned the party into a well-functioning institution, would re-establish order in the country as well.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">The Bolsheviks of course were convinced that what they were building in Russia was, if not socialism, at least the next best thing to socialism, for they were completing the process which in the Western nations was still only the main trend of development. They had abolished the market-economy and had expropriated the bourgeoisie; they also had gained complete control over the government. For the Russian workers, however, nothing had changed; they were merely faced by another set of bosses, politicians and indoctrinators. Their position equalled the workers' position in all capitalist countries during times of war. State-capitalism is a war-economy, and all extra-Russian economic systems transformed themselves into war-economies, into state-capitalistic systems fitted to the imperialistic needs of modern capitalism. Other nations did not copy all the innovations of Russian state-capitalism but only those best suited to their specific needs. The Second World War led to the further unfolding of state-capitalism on a world wide scale. The peculiarities of the various nations and their special situations within the world-power frame provided a great variety of developmental processes towards state-capitalism.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">The fact that state-capitalism and fascism did not, and do not grow everywhere in a uniform manner provided Trotsky with the argument of the basic difference between bolshevism, fascism and capitalism plain and simple. This argument necessarily stresses superficialities of social development. In all essential aspects all three of these systems are identical and represent only various stages of the same development -a development which aims at manipulating the mass of the population by dictatorial governments in a more or less authoritarian fashion, in order to secure the government and the privileged social layers which support it and to enable those governments to participate in the international economy of today by preparing for war, waging war, and profiting by war.</span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">Trotsky could not permit himself to recognise in Bolshevism one aspect of the world-wide trend towards a 'fascist' world economy. As late as 1940 he held the view that Bolshevism prevented the rise of Fascism in the Russia of 1917. It should have long since been clear, however, that all that Lenin and Trotsky prevented in Russia was the use of a non-Marxian ideology for the 'fascist' reconstruction of Russia. Because the Marxian ideology of Bolshevism merely served state-capitalistic ends, it, too, has been discredited. From any view that goes beyond the capitalist system of exploitation, Stalinism and Trotskyism are both relics of the past.<o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<p> </p>
<hr />
<p> </p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">NOTES<o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">1. Stalin. An appraisal of the man and his influence. Edited and translated from the Russian by Charles Malamuth. The first seven chapters and the appendix, that is, the bulk of the book, Trotsky wrote and revised himself. The last four chapters, consisting of notes, excerpts, documents and other raw materials, have been edited.<o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">2. See for instance, L. Trotsky's "Dictatorship vs. Democracy", New York, 1922; particularly from page 135 to page 150.<o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</o:p></font></font></span></div><div class="buttons-bottom center jinboblog-i-like-this-buttons"><a class="button-jinboblog" href="javascript:void(0);" title="스크랩으로 글 링크를 저장하세요" onclick="recommend('4942',2,'/iscralee','');"><img src="/plugins/../jplugins/ILikeThis/images/mini_chuchon.png" alt="진보블로그 공감 버튼" /></a><a class="button-twitter" href="http://twitter.com/home?status=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.jinbo.net%2Fiscralee%2F2+%22Bolshevism%20and%20Stalinism%22" target="_blank" title="트위터로 리트윗합니다"><img src="/plugins/../jplugins/ILikeThis/images/twitter.png" alt="트위터로 리트윗하기" /></a><a class="button-facebook" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.jinbo.net%2Fiscralee%2F2&t=Bolshevism%20and%20Stalinism" target="_blank" title="페이스북에 공유합니다"><img src="/plugins/../jplugins/ILikeThis/images/facebook.png" alt="페이스북에 공유하기" /></a><a class="button-delicious" href="http://delicious.com/save" onclick="window.open('http://delicious.com/save?v=5&noui&jump=close&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.jinbo.net%2Fiscralee%2F2&title=Bolshevism%20and%20Stalinism','delicious','toolbar=no,width=550,height=550'); return false;" title="딜리셔스에 북마크합니다"><img src="/plugins/../jplugins/ILikeThis/images/delicious.png" alt="딜리셔스에 북마크" /></a></div><p><strong><a href="http://blog.jinbo.net/iscralee/2?commentInput=true#entry2WriteComment">댓글 쓰기</a></strong></p>