- Capitalism and Alternatives -

what exactly do you mean by 'petty-bourgousie'?

Posted by: Lark on December 03, 1999 at 14:22:37:

In Reply to: Points considered posted by Stoller on December 02, 1999 at 22:02:29:

: In the first instance, the sailors were aligned with the SRs (which you'll recall was the political party of the petty-bourgeois peasantry before the revolution) to REVOKE the gains of the revolution;

The SR's where a socialist party that wished to bring about change through agrarian reform and empowerment of the workers themselves through trade union syndicalism, it was a form of political socialism suited to Russia to a far, far greater (that is one of a backward unindustrialised nation) extent not an imported western ideology created in entirely different circumstances.

Therefore, what exactly do you mean by 'petty-bourgousie'? Is it a catch all term for opposition to the Bolshevik terror? Are you in this instance refering to the secondary accounts of Lenin and Trotsky, clearly not unbiased since they seen the uprising as a challenge to their party and power and as previously discussed they viewed that as a challenge to revolution or socialism itself, and not the actual accounts of the sailors as detailed by Emma Goldmann or published by them, both accounts I'm sure are on the net.

:in the second, the sailors struggled to PRESERVE the gains of the revolution (N.E.P., which placated the peasants, ring a bell?).

The New Economic Policy, which you no doubt would consider a betrayal of the revolution as it allowed for relative inequality?

: BTW, if Trotsky was as authoritarian as you claim, why did he CATAGORICALLY RULE OUT the possibility of ousting Stalin while he (Trotsky) still commanded incredible loyalty from the RED ARMY? A question for you to ponder...

'My Party, Right or Wrong' a Statement for you to ponder....

: : -Trotsky did say that he was impressed by the english imperialist idea of 'right or wrong my nation' and that it should be grafted on to socialism as 'right or wrong my party', now that is hardly consistant with his new found anti-state, anti-dictator sentiments in 'Revolution Betrayed' (by this stage I'm getting the impression that he was either totally inconsistant and incapable of formulating theories that wherent grounded in his own experience)

: No, at that point Trotsky was LEARNING as NEW historical trends were taking shape. The thing you miss in Trotsky's work is how his mind was ALERT to historical shifts. The contradictions were the stuff of LIFE.

You clearly hold this person in high regard and so in trying to debate the issues and critically assess them I run the risk that you will consider these facts insults (this is unfortunate and seldom the case among free thinking anarchos or socialists), I do not consider your statement here to be fact but a mere defence of a position you consider to be important, like a Catholic defending the Spanish Inquisition because they think that questioning it would lead to a challenge of the church itself.

Trotsky was making a terrible statement to a congress (as the earlier statement of Crick indicated) on the importance of blind loyalty, or at least uncritical loyalty, not suggesting anything like the decline of the nation and political criteria in peoples contemporary ideological mindset.

: : - Lenin's 'state and revolution' was written in a specific context aswell, it isnt in tune with 'Can the Bolsheviks maintain power' or any of the other leader centric rants that he wrote so he's very like Trotsky in this respect.

: Lenin never said the higher phase of communism would take place BEFORE the civil war determined which class was EVEN IN POWER.

It's small issues like this that I have real issue with the entire Leninst, and in some senses Marxist, project rests upon the notion of freedom but not just yet, or freedom eventually etc., just take the statement lenin made about the cook being incapable of 'government', in what way are they incapable? Or are they any more incapable of governing than the bureaucrat that lenin was.

: : - Why is it so important to defend the reputations etc. of these people when they where so obviously human and prone to error?

: Well, if you'll stop worshipping Plato for a minute or two, you might realize that ALL HUMANS are 'human and prone to error.'

Worshipping Plato? I have not militantly defended his positions and errors as you have the bolsheviks, are you perhaps grasping at straws with a remark like that? Humans are prone to error, so I dont seek to defend them errors and all, you do, you didn't say that Trotsky sanctioned the murder of the Kronstadt sailors in a murderous and politically sectarian fashion but besides that he had good ideas on some things, you sought to defend that into the bargain.

: What a dumb question.

you'll explain how it's dumb, it's really important that if you are going to respect and attempt to improve freedom, observe the human condition and solve the problem of living that you are consistant.

: The significance of the Bolsheviks is that they built the first worker's state. Much of what they did was brilliant. Much was also flawed. It would behoove us to study their experience. It is also worth pointing out that their sucesses (and there were many)demonstrate that Marxism REMAINS a goal worth struggling for.

Or is it Socialism or a Humane order rather than Marxism? When someone says to me they are a Marxian Socialist I consider it to something very similar to those who consider themselves Christian Socialists, there is a great element of thought in each that should be restricted to the private realm, in one it's religious inclination, in the other philosophical inclination, each have their prophets and I would prefer an order without prohpets and a mere socialism.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup