Although I used to find it funny, these days I'm getting tired of Trotskyists using the insult of "Stalinist" to declaim communist movements and theoretical commitments of which they are ignorant. The crude and simplistic Trotskyist rejection of Maoism, after all, is that it is "Stalinist." And then, following this charge, very simplistic analyses of Maoism and the Chinese Revolution are mobilized (most of which demonstrate an utter ignorance of history and bizarre willingness to conflate revolutionary China with today's pro-capitalist China), along with spurious complaints about Maoists killing Trotskyists in third world settings for being counter-revolutionary. Hence: Stalinist.
Earlier, in the context of another post, I briefly indicated that Trotskyism was flawed by an essentialist understanding of class; because of this the prototypical Trotskyist understanding of class consciousness, class position, and class struggle annihilates the possibility of concretely understanding race/racism, gender/sexism, and other sites of oppression as part of social class. Trotskyism's crude class reductionism, which at the end of the day obliterates a proper understanding of class as a social category, also connects to its general eurocentric understanding of world history. There is a reason that Maoism is simply another species of "Stalinism"––this is because no one from places like China, according to the most rabid Trotskyite cult recruiter, are capable of theoretical thought. The same goes for any revolutionary African historical materialism: I have heard numerous Trotskyists, for example, write-off Frantz Fanon because he was not a proper "revolutionary theorist"––apparently writing theory in the midst of an anticolonial revolution does not qualify as properly revolutionary. No, to be a proper revolutionary one must cling to theory that emerged from the "civilized" centres of world capitalism where workers struggles, we are told, are far more advanced than the "primitive" and "degenerated" struggles in the peripheries.
Trotskyist theory of world revolution, then, generally tends to be a eurocentric game. The entire theory of Permanent Revolution, which relies on the erroneous analysis of world capitalism being "combined and uneven development" (one mode of production cast upon the entire globe), ultimately produces an understanding of revolution that is both chauvinist and paralyzing: the task of underdeveloped nations (and there is no clear understanding of the global capitalist relationship that develops underdevelopment), was for the germ of the working classes there to pursue the bourgeois democratic revolution in their own country and keep alive a revolutionary spirit (i.e. holding the revolution in permanence), while keeping alive a revolutionary spirit, thus creating a larger and more advanced working class––ultimately all of the nations that did this would have to hold the revolution in permanence for a long time until everyone in the world was in a similar place, like the "advanced" working class in the already capitalist developed nations, so as to have a socialist revolution altogether. Maoist theories, along with theories emerging from revolutionary African movements (i.e. Fanon, Cabral, etc.), rejected this position as a half-truth; this is why the theories of New Democratic Revolution and Cultural Revolution, for example, emerged in China. (It might also be why Tony Cliff, despite being a Trotskyist, tried to "update" the theory of Permanent Revolution and ended up with a version that, despite being messy, closely approximated Mao's theory of New Democratic Revolution.)
In any case, I am not going to spend too much time here going into the problems of Trotskyist theory: once you point out a flaw at the heart of these types of theories, you tend to unleash a storm of anger from theoretical partisans who want to argue the minutia as a way of throwing dust in your eyes to detract from your original complaint. My aim here is to focus on the Trotskyist charge of "Stalinism" to point out its irony, especially when wielded against Maoists: not only does it try to conflate all marxist theory to simplistic understanding of the politics that emerged in the Russian revolution, it is ironic because Trotskyism and Stalinism are cut from the same cloth of crude marxist theory. Samir Amin, political economist and critical marxist, once remarked that Trotskyism and Stalinism were two sides of the same economic determinist coin, both dogmatic dead-ends post-Lenin.
Aside from the eurocentric nature behind the charge, whenever Trotskyists scream "Stalinist" I feel like I am encountering the echo of mimetic rivalry that refused to die with Trotsky and Stalin. Maybe Trotskyists are just mad because Stalin, rather than Trotsky, was Lenin's successor and thus the temporary leader of world communism. A short-lived and problematic leader of the International (and the former was probably due to the latter), true, but the recognized leader nonetheless. Fourth Internationalists tend to believe that if Trotsky had been in charge of the Russian Revolution things would be different; they are angry that he was driven out of the fold and forced into exile.
Before going further I want to be clear that I do not believe, as some dogmatic anti-Trotskyists claim, that Trotsky was some sort of counter-revolutionary wrecker who was secretly reactionary and thus deserved exile. Clearly Trotsky was a great revolutionary: he did not deserve the religious-style excommunication levelled upon him by the rest of the Russian Comintern, nor did he deserve the dogmatic ret-conning of history that would assign him to eternal and secret counter-revolutionary status. My complaints are about Trotskyist theory, which I think post-Trotsky does lead to unintentional counter-revolutionary tendencies in revolutionary contexts, because I think that Trotsky, like Stalin, wasn't a very good revolutionary theorist and, as mentioned above, both Trotskyism and Stalinism were theoretical dead-ends post-Lenin. Moreover, because of the mimetic rivalry I think existed between Trotsky and Stalin and their theoretical understandings of capitalism, I think that if things had been reversed Trotsky would have acted in a similar manner and performed the same, or at least similar, "sins" as Stalin.
Take, for example, the theoretical debate that led to Trotsky's exile. Whereas Trotsky wanted more rapid industrialization and to escalate class struggle against the kulak (wealthy peasant) class in the countryside, Stalin argued for a slower and more measured approach––he was backed in this by Bukharin who probably wanted and even slower and more measured approach in peasant policies. Thus, Trotsky's belief that the kulak class was "a vulture class" of "undeniable and irreconcilable enemies" (Trotsky, Terrorism and Communism, 106) was what placed him at odds with the Comintern and led to his exile. What is interesting about this, however, is that Stalin would later reverse his position on the peasant question and adopt the line argued by Trotsky. (In fact, and this hilariously supports my claim about mimetic rivalry, it is interesting to note that one of Stalin's most read books, with the most underlined passages and marginalia, was Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism.)
We know that one of the great "sins" of Stalin was his policies in the countryside: the rapid industrialization and class struggle against the kulak led to violence––violence maybe overestimated and overemphasized by rightists, but something we as leftists need to take seriously. Anti-Stalin (and most often anti-communist) historiographies, after all, focus on these policies and the deaths they produced: these are the arguments used to present Stalin as a force of evil. Most interestingly, however, these arguments are also and often mobilized by Trotskyists to demonstrate why Stalin was the wrong leader and why Trotsky would have been a better man for the job. Nor do most Trotskyists argue, as would be proper, that Stalin's error was in switching political lines possibly for real politik and callous reasons (thus demonstrating, maybe, a potential lack of theoretical/political integrity or, if anything, a lack of consistency). Generally, they choose to forget that the policies that have become known as Stalin's sins were policies first pushed by Trotsky. Bukharin knew this, and argued that this was the case when he set himself against the escalation of industrialization and war against the kulaks, which led to his show-trial.
Whether or not Bukharin's political position was correct (I think it was just as erroneous) is not the issue here: the issue is that Bukharin remained politically consistent whereas Trotsky and Stalin did not. Nor am I arguing for the morality of political consistency; I understand that contexts require shifts in policy and that mistakes, often great mistakes, are produced by an inability to adapt just as they are produced by an inability to adapt the proper policy. What I find interesting is how the sides of the Stalin-Trotsky theoretical coin were reversed when it came to Stalin's policies and the death of Bukharin: Trotskyists screamed bloody murder, Stalinists screamed about counter-revolutionaries, when the truth is that the Trotskyist and Stalinist positions had simply flip-flopped. Bukharin's death was another sin for Trotskyists to lay at the feet of Stalin as if Trotsky himself would not have had Bukharin executed for the very same reasons. (Again, this is not to justify Bukharin's death: I think it was unjustifiable, but I also think that it is utterly hypocritical for Trotskyists, who had once railed against Bukharin when he was also behind Trotsky's expulsion, to cry about his execution.)
When we turn our attention to the Chinese Revolution, the next great world historical revolution after Russia, we again find mimetic positions held by the Stalin and Trotsky backed communist factions. Both Chen Duxhiu (Trotskyist) and Li Lisan (Stalinist), once the pre-eminent leaders of the Chinese Communist Party, argued for a strange form of entryism: to liquidate themselves within the nationalist Kuomintang, guide it from the inside, and take over the leadership. They also argued for a city-based struggle amongst the "advanced" working-class where city insurrections would be the key to revolution. Both Stalin and Trotsky backed this strategy while, at the same time, each arguing that their mimetic rival was doing something different (read a Workers Vanguard journal about the Chinese Revolution and you can see that this bad historical analysis, filled with all sorts of contradictions, is still alive today). In any case, Mao led a political line that broke from this position of revolution, rejected the Kuomintang as a space for struggle, and moved to the countryside––which saved the communist party because the Duxhiu and Lisan line was annihilated by the Kuomintang (demonstrating yet again why entryism is not a very good tactic).
Thus, Maoism first emerged as a creative application of marxism that was neither Trotskyist nor Stalinist. Generally Mao and his allies saw the Stalinist and Trotskyist positions as theoretically identical. The key difference, however, was that Stalin was actually a leader of a nation that was still socialist, and still the recognized leader (however bad his leadership might have been), of the international proletariat. Trotsky on the other hand was a leader in exile whose influence on global revolution was null, whose supposed Fourth International would never be an international (a small handful of eurocentrists does not an international make), and who wasn't worth taking seriously. Mao's statements about Stalin must always be read in this light: Stalin was a recognized revolutionary leader and so his policies and positions were considerably more serious than those of a dishonoured exile.
But if we examine the Maoist critique of Stalin we can see how the same critique could be levelled at Trotsky. First of all there was the Maoist rejection of Moscow's interference in the Chinese Revolution represented by Li Lisan––the same policy pushed by the Trotskyists represented by Chen Duxhiu. Then there is Mao's criticism of Stalin's peasant policies, for example, which could easily be levelled at Trotsky since, as aforementioned, they were originally Trotsky's. Finally, and this connects to my initial complaint about Trotskyism being, the Chinese revolutionaries under Mao charged Stalin with having the same class reductionist analysis that I have seen demonstrated by many Trotskyists: "[i]n his way of thinking, Stalin departed from dialectical materialism and fell into metaphysics and subjectivism on certain questions and consequently he was sometimes divorced from reality and from the masses." (The Great Debate, 91) They also accused Stalin of not fully applying "proletarian democratic revolution", wrongly convicting/punishing innocent people, and giving "bad counsel in the internationalist communist movement"––counsel that China, as aforementioned, ignored.
Again, the key difference between Stalin and Trotsky in this context was that, while their theoretical approaches were mimetically similar, the former was the recognized leader of the international proletariat and the latter was not. So while Maoist theory emerged against both of these post-Leninist dead-ends, it only took Stalinism and Stalin seriously because that was the theoretical line being pushed by the first actually existing socialism. If Maoist theory is ultimately a rejection of the "metaphysics and subjectivism" of Stalinism, then it is a rejection of Trotskyism for the same reason… And if history had been different, and Trotsky was the leader of the Soviet Union and Stalin was in exile, then the Maoist complaints about Stalin would be identical but this time assigned to Trotsky.
Earlier, in the context of another post, I briefly indicated that Trotskyism was flawed by an essentialist understanding of class; because of this the prototypical Trotskyist understanding of class consciousness, class position, and class struggle annihilates the possibility of concretely understanding race/racism, gender/sexism, and other sites of oppression as part of social class. Trotskyism's crude class reductionism, which at the end of the day obliterates a proper understanding of class as a social category, also connects to its general eurocentric understanding of world history. There is a reason that Maoism is simply another species of "Stalinism"––this is because no one from places like China, according to the most rabid Trotskyite cult recruiter, are capable of theoretical thought. The same goes for any revolutionary African historical materialism: I have heard numerous Trotskyists, for example, write-off Frantz Fanon because he was not a proper "revolutionary theorist"––apparently writing theory in the midst of an anticolonial revolution does not qualify as properly revolutionary. No, to be a proper revolutionary one must cling to theory that emerged from the "civilized" centres of world capitalism where workers struggles, we are told, are far more advanced than the "primitive" and "degenerated" struggles in the peripheries.
Trotskyist theory of world revolution, then, generally tends to be a eurocentric game. The entire theory of Permanent Revolution, which relies on the erroneous analysis of world capitalism being "combined and uneven development" (one mode of production cast upon the entire globe), ultimately produces an understanding of revolution that is both chauvinist and paralyzing: the task of underdeveloped nations (and there is no clear understanding of the global capitalist relationship that develops underdevelopment), was for the germ of the working classes there to pursue the bourgeois democratic revolution in their own country and keep alive a revolutionary spirit (i.e. holding the revolution in permanence), while keeping alive a revolutionary spirit, thus creating a larger and more advanced working class––ultimately all of the nations that did this would have to hold the revolution in permanence for a long time until everyone in the world was in a similar place, like the "advanced" working class in the already capitalist developed nations, so as to have a socialist revolution altogether. Maoist theories, along with theories emerging from revolutionary African movements (i.e. Fanon, Cabral, etc.), rejected this position as a half-truth; this is why the theories of New Democratic Revolution and Cultural Revolution, for example, emerged in China. (It might also be why Tony Cliff, despite being a Trotskyist, tried to "update" the theory of Permanent Revolution and ended up with a version that, despite being messy, closely approximated Mao's theory of New Democratic Revolution.)
In any case, I am not going to spend too much time here going into the problems of Trotskyist theory: once you point out a flaw at the heart of these types of theories, you tend to unleash a storm of anger from theoretical partisans who want to argue the minutia as a way of throwing dust in your eyes to detract from your original complaint. My aim here is to focus on the Trotskyist charge of "Stalinism" to point out its irony, especially when wielded against Maoists: not only does it try to conflate all marxist theory to simplistic understanding of the politics that emerged in the Russian revolution, it is ironic because Trotskyism and Stalinism are cut from the same cloth of crude marxist theory. Samir Amin, political economist and critical marxist, once remarked that Trotskyism and Stalinism were two sides of the same economic determinist coin, both dogmatic dead-ends post-Lenin.
Aside from the eurocentric nature behind the charge, whenever Trotskyists scream "Stalinist" I feel like I am encountering the echo of mimetic rivalry that refused to die with Trotsky and Stalin. Maybe Trotskyists are just mad because Stalin, rather than Trotsky, was Lenin's successor and thus the temporary leader of world communism. A short-lived and problematic leader of the International (and the former was probably due to the latter), true, but the recognized leader nonetheless. Fourth Internationalists tend to believe that if Trotsky had been in charge of the Russian Revolution things would be different; they are angry that he was driven out of the fold and forced into exile.
Before going further I want to be clear that I do not believe, as some dogmatic anti-Trotskyists claim, that Trotsky was some sort of counter-revolutionary wrecker who was secretly reactionary and thus deserved exile. Clearly Trotsky was a great revolutionary: he did not deserve the religious-style excommunication levelled upon him by the rest of the Russian Comintern, nor did he deserve the dogmatic ret-conning of history that would assign him to eternal and secret counter-revolutionary status. My complaints are about Trotskyist theory, which I think post-Trotsky does lead to unintentional counter-revolutionary tendencies in revolutionary contexts, because I think that Trotsky, like Stalin, wasn't a very good revolutionary theorist and, as mentioned above, both Trotskyism and Stalinism were theoretical dead-ends post-Lenin. Moreover, because of the mimetic rivalry I think existed between Trotsky and Stalin and their theoretical understandings of capitalism, I think that if things had been reversed Trotsky would have acted in a similar manner and performed the same, or at least similar, "sins" as Stalin.
Take, for example, the theoretical debate that led to Trotsky's exile. Whereas Trotsky wanted more rapid industrialization and to escalate class struggle against the kulak (wealthy peasant) class in the countryside, Stalin argued for a slower and more measured approach––he was backed in this by Bukharin who probably wanted and even slower and more measured approach in peasant policies. Thus, Trotsky's belief that the kulak class was "a vulture class" of "undeniable and irreconcilable enemies" (Trotsky, Terrorism and Communism, 106) was what placed him at odds with the Comintern and led to his exile. What is interesting about this, however, is that Stalin would later reverse his position on the peasant question and adopt the line argued by Trotsky. (In fact, and this hilariously supports my claim about mimetic rivalry, it is interesting to note that one of Stalin's most read books, with the most underlined passages and marginalia, was Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism.)
We know that one of the great "sins" of Stalin was his policies in the countryside: the rapid industrialization and class struggle against the kulak led to violence––violence maybe overestimated and overemphasized by rightists, but something we as leftists need to take seriously. Anti-Stalin (and most often anti-communist) historiographies, after all, focus on these policies and the deaths they produced: these are the arguments used to present Stalin as a force of evil. Most interestingly, however, these arguments are also and often mobilized by Trotskyists to demonstrate why Stalin was the wrong leader and why Trotsky would have been a better man for the job. Nor do most Trotskyists argue, as would be proper, that Stalin's error was in switching political lines possibly for real politik and callous reasons (thus demonstrating, maybe, a potential lack of theoretical/political integrity or, if anything, a lack of consistency). Generally, they choose to forget that the policies that have become known as Stalin's sins were policies first pushed by Trotsky. Bukharin knew this, and argued that this was the case when he set himself against the escalation of industrialization and war against the kulaks, which led to his show-trial.
Whether or not Bukharin's political position was correct (I think it was just as erroneous) is not the issue here: the issue is that Bukharin remained politically consistent whereas Trotsky and Stalin did not. Nor am I arguing for the morality of political consistency; I understand that contexts require shifts in policy and that mistakes, often great mistakes, are produced by an inability to adapt just as they are produced by an inability to adapt the proper policy. What I find interesting is how the sides of the Stalin-Trotsky theoretical coin were reversed when it came to Stalin's policies and the death of Bukharin: Trotskyists screamed bloody murder, Stalinists screamed about counter-revolutionaries, when the truth is that the Trotskyist and Stalinist positions had simply flip-flopped. Bukharin's death was another sin for Trotskyists to lay at the feet of Stalin as if Trotsky himself would not have had Bukharin executed for the very same reasons. (Again, this is not to justify Bukharin's death: I think it was unjustifiable, but I also think that it is utterly hypocritical for Trotskyists, who had once railed against Bukharin when he was also behind Trotsky's expulsion, to cry about his execution.)
When we turn our attention to the Chinese Revolution, the next great world historical revolution after Russia, we again find mimetic positions held by the Stalin and Trotsky backed communist factions. Both Chen Duxhiu (Trotskyist) and Li Lisan (Stalinist), once the pre-eminent leaders of the Chinese Communist Party, argued for a strange form of entryism: to liquidate themselves within the nationalist Kuomintang, guide it from the inside, and take over the leadership. They also argued for a city-based struggle amongst the "advanced" working-class where city insurrections would be the key to revolution. Both Stalin and Trotsky backed this strategy while, at the same time, each arguing that their mimetic rival was doing something different (read a Workers Vanguard journal about the Chinese Revolution and you can see that this bad historical analysis, filled with all sorts of contradictions, is still alive today). In any case, Mao led a political line that broke from this position of revolution, rejected the Kuomintang as a space for struggle, and moved to the countryside––which saved the communist party because the Duxhiu and Lisan line was annihilated by the Kuomintang (demonstrating yet again why entryism is not a very good tactic).
Thus, Maoism first emerged as a creative application of marxism that was neither Trotskyist nor Stalinist. Generally Mao and his allies saw the Stalinist and Trotskyist positions as theoretically identical. The key difference, however, was that Stalin was actually a leader of a nation that was still socialist, and still the recognized leader (however bad his leadership might have been), of the international proletariat. Trotsky on the other hand was a leader in exile whose influence on global revolution was null, whose supposed Fourth International would never be an international (a small handful of eurocentrists does not an international make), and who wasn't worth taking seriously. Mao's statements about Stalin must always be read in this light: Stalin was a recognized revolutionary leader and so his policies and positions were considerably more serious than those of a dishonoured exile.
But if we examine the Maoist critique of Stalin we can see how the same critique could be levelled at Trotsky. First of all there was the Maoist rejection of Moscow's interference in the Chinese Revolution represented by Li Lisan––the same policy pushed by the Trotskyists represented by Chen Duxhiu. Then there is Mao's criticism of Stalin's peasant policies, for example, which could easily be levelled at Trotsky since, as aforementioned, they were originally Trotsky's. Finally, and this connects to my initial complaint about Trotskyism being, the Chinese revolutionaries under Mao charged Stalin with having the same class reductionist analysis that I have seen demonstrated by many Trotskyists: "[i]n his way of thinking, Stalin departed from dialectical materialism and fell into metaphysics and subjectivism on certain questions and consequently he was sometimes divorced from reality and from the masses." (The Great Debate, 91) They also accused Stalin of not fully applying "proletarian democratic revolution", wrongly convicting/punishing innocent people, and giving "bad counsel in the internationalist communist movement"––counsel that China, as aforementioned, ignored.
Again, the key difference between Stalin and Trotsky in this context was that, while their theoretical approaches were mimetically similar, the former was the recognized leader of the international proletariat and the latter was not. So while Maoist theory emerged against both of these post-Leninist dead-ends, it only took Stalinism and Stalin seriously because that was the theoretical line being pushed by the first actually existing socialism. If Maoist theory is ultimately a rejection of the "metaphysics and subjectivism" of Stalinism, then it is a rejection of Trotskyism for the same reason… And if history had been different, and Trotsky was the leader of the Soviet Union and Stalin was in exile, then the Maoist complaints about Stalin would be identical but this time assigned to Trotsky.
"What is interesting about this, however, is that Stalin would later reverse his position on the peasant question and adopt the line argued by Trotsky. (In fact, and this hilariously supports my claim about mimetic rivalry, it is interesting to note that one of Stalin's most read books, with the most underlined passages and marginalia, was Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism.)"
ReplyDelete-I am very glad that you wrote about this. What many people fail to understand is that Stalin was not big on originality. He may have competed with Trotsky for Lenin's affections and for power within the country after Lenin's death, but it was a competition for power. Ideologically, he learned a lot from Trotsky and after kicking him out of the country aped his ideas faithfully.
I also agree with you completely on Bukharin.
Great post. Very insightful and devoid of the usual platitudes surrounding Stalinism and Trotskyism.
Thanks... though I am still worried that I will offend some of the Trotskyist or post-Trotskyist folks who read this blog from time to time.
ReplyDeleteI have my influences in a variety of traditions, but I must say that this is a good post and nothing offensive. But I think you misread Combined and Uneven Development. How it is used as a theoretical tool is actually against those who would call for mere bourgeois democratic revolutions in permanence, keeping alive the rev. spirit, etc. (see Brenner's essay on Neo-smithian Marxism) etc. I know you have your issues with that school, but Brenner is explicitly using it (as does Rosenberg, Teschke, etc.) against the idea that people in developing countries just need BDR and then hold rev. spirit in permanence.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that you're right about Trotsky and Stalin's politics. But uneven and combined development (used by Lenin and Parvus well before Trotsky) - that capitalism was indeed logically, is "one mode of production cast upon the entire globe" is precisely what Marx believed. One doesn't have to take flawed political implications from this point that seems all but obvious.
Thanks Jordy... I was really simplifying in that practice but I meant "combined and uneven development" in the way it appears in Trotskyist theory where it is a cipher intensely wed with: a) permanent revolution; b) the rejection of "socialism in one country." Trotsky's theory of combined and uneven development does imply that capitalism is a world mode of production that, combined in toto, is uneven.
ReplyDeleteYou are right to note that the Brenner school does use it against the Trotsky position, but this is precisely why Colin Barker critiques Woods for not being "Trotskyist enough." The reason that this charge is made is because Barker is drawing attention to the way that the non-Trotskyist use of a theory that flourished under Trotskyism is being used (in his mind due to his political commitments) in an inaccurate manner. Regardless of my feelings surrounding the Brenner school, perhaps if they had chosen another terminology rather than one that, by this time, is intensely wed to Trotskyist theory, Barker would not be able to make what, at the end of the day (and again despite my reservations regarding the Brenner school), is a sectarian argument.
I guess I don't keep up with my trainspotting because I'm not familiar with Barker's arguments. I think what pisses a lot of people off though, about projects that don't fit into 20th century labels - whether they be theoretical or practical - is that it seems to many sides to be heretical.
ReplyDeleteAnd just to emphasize - Trotsky did not found Combined and Uneven Development. Parvus and Lenin used it. Maoists and Eurocommunists used it. And I see it as descriptive, not normative. How is capitalism not a totalizing mode of production in a combined and uneven sense? It seems obvious.
ReplyDeleteThe use of the term by Lenin did not necessarily mean that it was a totalizing mode of production. And the Maoists definitely did not see it as thus... This point became clear with the theories of imperialism that emerged from the M-L-M school of thought that made an important, very important, distinction between capitalist modes of production and capitalist formations. The entire world is a capitalist system because it's subordinated to the capitalist market, but there are modes of production that are not necessarily capitalist within this system. In fact, this is what makes the distinction between peripheries and centres: only the centres are capitalist modes of production. When this distinction is not made we end up with the erroneous Trotskyist line of looking for the "advanced" working class in every social formation, and now I'm going to simplify just because this is not what I'm arguing here (nor do I want to waste time arguing here what I expended hundreds of pages arguing in my thesis, and that others have spent books upon books theorizing), and ignoring all the other contradictions (especially the peasant question in semi-colonial/semi-feudal countries).
ReplyDeleteI would argue that when Lenin used it, pre-Trotsky, it was just because the theory of imperialism was in development at that time. An understanding that previous modes of production lingered within a system of global unequal development emerged from the political economy developed in anti-imperialist and anti-colonial struggles, most notably the Chinese Revolution. It's not like Lenin and really theorized what it meant for a mode of production to be global: this came post-Lenin, most notably in the two dead-ends of Trotskyism and Stalinism. The Maoist turn, as with everything else, theorized world capitalism, or imperialism, in the way I've indicated. [Hence the initial emphasis on what it means to be be a semi-feudal, semi-colonial mode of production, which they went on about possibly ad nauseum.]
Oh, I should add, because you'll probably find this interesting: it is exactly this notion of world capitalism itself being one massive and singular mode of production that led to the erroneous definition of capitalism rightly critiqued by the Political Marxists. When global capitalism is defined as a global mode of production, this is usually done by saying: "see, the capitalist market is global therefore the entire world is a single mode of production." But one of the contributions of the Political Marxists (again despite my qualifications) was to point out that the class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie is also important for the definition of a capitalist mode of production - not simply the market.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the reason why the theory of "combined and uneven development" [understood as a singular global mode of production] is important for Trotskyists is because it determines their rejection of socialism in one country. If the entire world is one mode of production, and we have to bring certain areas up to speed, then we have to hold the revolution in permanence because the mode of production is global and everyone needs to be up to speed to overthrow it - that it is, it cannot be overthrown, even temporarily, in a single country. In any case, there is a reason why I said I did not want to go on about this issue other than a paragraph in the original essay: this was a can of worms that I spent an entire two chapters of my dissertation tackling and examining.
Hi Jordy,
ReplyDeleteOut of curiosity could you please give me an example of a Maoist using the term "combined and uneven development"? From my experience the term is very closely associated at this point with Trotskyism and his ideas, which normally means that Maoists simply dismiss it outright.
Sorry: I didn't mean to doubt anything. I maintain however that political marxists dialectically conceive of capitalism as "universal capitalism" (Lacher 2006) whilst maintaining a variety of "national capitalisms" within that. So the point is not to reject that capitalism is universal, but that its logic-of-process is totalizing. This is in distinction to Trotskyist use of C and UE development which, as you point out, is merely used to take the empirical realtiy and prove that this or that ideal type working class is not "advancd" (a position that reaches its epitome in the Fightback line).. I understand the implications of this observation of empirical reality for those who want o make empirical reality a hint of thier pre-existing theory - but it is that very observation that led political marxists to see things differently. I don't mean anything as an attack, just discussion - I'm not doubting your knowledge of this and would love to read the dissertation as I respect your reading of all of this more than I do most people..
ReplyDelete@WD: Althusserians (who I guess come out of the Maoist tradition) have used C and UE D, in particular Poulantzians Some do use the term.
Let me be clear, PM theories of capitalism - "universal capitalism" etc. stipulate that there can of course be non-capialist modes of production within capitalist globality, even within capitalist states (I'd argue that some indigenous territory is not fully subsumed under capial)
ReplyDeleteI was never claiming that Political Marxism thought otherwise - my problems with PM have nothing to do with its analysis of global capitalism. Actually, the point you made about a variety of national capitalisms (and I would add to this also semi-feudalisms, etc.) within global capitalism is precisely what I was arguing: and this is very different than globalizing the capitalist mode of production. Clearly capitalist logic is global (there is a capitalist world system) but this does not mean that the mode of production is global. I feel you didn't read one of my previous comments because I made the precise point about Political Marxism and its importance.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, your claim that there can be non-capitalist modes of production within capitalist globality is precisely what I was arguing. If you say this, then also say that capitalism is a global mode of production, then you are left with a very non-sensical position: there is a mode of production but parts of it are other modes of production, which is illogical. Stipulating universal capitalism (which I agree is necessary and which we can call modern imperialism) does not mean to also stipulate a global mode of capitalism. So your argument does not in fact reject any of the points I've been making and seems to presuppose a rejection of capitalism as a global mode of production.
And just so we can be clear so you aren't arguing the same thing I'm arguing again, which you seem to be doing, here is where your claim that capitalism is a "global mode of production" is refuted by other claims you make: you say that "some indigenous territory is not fully subsumed under capital." A mode of production by its very nature, though also incorporating elements from past modes of production, still subsumes things under its dynamic. But if there are areas not subsumed then this would mean that, by that very claim, it is not "global." Obviously this does not mean that its logic is not global (it is) but that there are multiple and competing capitalist modes of production (this is one of the global contradictions), just as there are other modes of production, but that are capitalist formations because they are dominated by capital, functioning in the world today.
ReplyDeleteI think you read me wrong - I was agreeing with you - just pointing out how the use of a Combined and Uneven Development framework leads me to that agreement.
ReplyDeleteAnd your second point emphasizes why a lot of political marxists reject either "mode of production" or "social formation" and instead use "social property relations"..
ReplyDeleteFair enough. But I would say that the theory "Combined and Uneven Development" is so intrinsically wed to Trotskyist analyses of global capitalism, and is known in anti-imperialist debates as now being a cipher for that position, that it's probably best to avoid it altogether.
ReplyDeleteI just read Barker's critique of Wood and pinning what he sees as the problematic aspect of Wood's work as its influence by the British Marxist Historians. Precisely what he sees as a weakness is what I see as a strength. What seemed a very generous appreciation of Wood turned into something out of the back pages of some second-rate Spart rag.
ReplyDeleteLol! Well I never said Barker's critique was good, hahahahaha... Though you are right: it starts off appreciative and then turns into this very sectarian critique. Obviously I have my problems with Wood, but that sort of critique probably does believe in the pages of a "second-rate Spart rag." (Wait a minute, would that mean in the pages of "1917"?)
ReplyDeleteInteresting post. This phenomenon has bugged me ever since I got into Maoism a couple years ago. The perfect extreme example would be the Trotskyist Workers Revolutionary Party in the UK blaming the "Russian and Chinese Stalinists" for not blocking the No-Fly Zone over Libya. But even before I learned to appreciate Stalin it seemed an odd thing to me that so many people, or entire movements and states no less, could be unconsciously aping one man's political dynamic, or whatever they mean at an given time. When there is no connection to Stalin to be found, it seems to me that they are positing an ideal thing - "Stalinism" - which can be conformed or not conformed to, but which can suit any behavior or action deemed wrong. Mao, indeed has been called as the connection to Stalin, as part of an unbroken chain in order to try and discredit Maoists. Of course there are connections from Stalin to Mao, but let's not pretend Stalin really had any say over China. He actually told Mao later that he was wrong about things in China. Sometimes it seems to me that the Chinese Revolution is called "Stalinist" because it doesn't conform to the west European revolutionary model that Trotsky pushed as the most important thing, without which all would be lost, and therefore it is eastern peasant thuggery or something.
ReplyDeleteIt really is a luxury of exile too though. I have heard all numbers of explanations of how the "real" Chinese revolution would have happened at such and such a time, in the 1920's or earlier if it were not for mean old Stalin, or if Trotsky had been in charge somehow it would have been perfect and mistakes would not have been made. Unfortunately none of them are very convincing - I have heard the even more hilarious idea that the CPUSA prevented the American Revolution in the 1930's when workers were "ready" and simply lacked Trotskyist leadership. It's a nice idea, but ultimately a dead end I think. Anyway, glad to have a sober mind like yours tackle this conundrum. Even myself who was raised anti-Stalin like most everyone else on colonized North America will get perhaps too eagerly pro-Stalin in opposition to crap like this.
I am curious, though this takes us away from the topic a bit, have you read Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR?
Thanks for the comment... You know, I haven't read Stalin's Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, though I've always meant to and have read texts where it is quoted: I even have a disintegrating copy on my shelf that I should probably crack open - maybe read it parallel to Terrorism and Communism.
ReplyDeleteYour point about an ideal Stalinism that "can suit any behaviour or action deemed wrong" is great: the slur does function in the most uncritical manner to shut-down political debate. At the end of the day, though, it does seem to be about rejecting anything that is not "Trotskyist"... although some anarchists have used this charge as well.
The luxury of exile: also a good point. Making historical suppositions is useful, but the bizarre historical conjectures made by some people, especially those who see Stalin hiding under every bed and in every closet, boggles the mind.
I'd definitely recommend a read. The chapters on Character of Economic Laws Under Socialism,
ReplyDeleteCommodity Production Under Socialism, The Law of Value Under Socialism, and Abolition of the Antithesis Between Town and Country, and Between Mental and Physical Labour, and the Elimination of the Distinction Between Them are particularly interesting.
I'm surprised you have a copy - Foreign Languages Press I imagine? - because it was written in 1952, and never heard of again until the Chinese reprinted it. Needless to say, the economists that Stalin was polemicizing against, and their ideas, outlived him.
I'm sure the pamphlet is inadequate in a lot of ways, I only gave it one read so far myself, but it's a very interesting testament that as a dying old man the major effort he undertook was to try and figure out some of the complicated questions of advancing the country towards communism. The conclusions are interesting as well, and they were basically shoved under the carpet and never spoken of again in the Soviet Union. Anyway, hope you get a chance to read it and keep up the posting. Even if I have no idea who the Political Marxists are haha...
You can find lots of interesting books when parties that have gone revisionist (in this case the Communist Party Canada) have giant book sales of their past libraries. Thanks for the recommendation.
ReplyDeleteAnd "Political Marxism" is a term usually given to those marxists influenced by the thought of Robert Brenner and Ellen Wood... Beloved in academia, but otherwise mainly useless when it comes to revolutionary theory. I'll probably get more out of reading this single pamphlet by Stalin, regardless if its inadequate or not, than Brenner's entire ouevre.
Ah yes, I have read a few Ellen Wood books. She does a good polemic against Laclau and Mouffe and the "Empire" folks too I think... But I agree with your assessment. Folks in academia like that who don't view it as secondary to their party school commitment would have been viewed very unfavourably before WWII.
ReplyDeletePS: Did anyone transcribe Stalin's notes on Terrorism and Communism?
I have no idea if anyone transcribed Stalin's notes on Terrorism and Communism. Or rather, I'm sure someone did but whether or not they've been published anywhere is something I've never looked into... It's not like there is some huge market out there these days for the notes of Stalin.
ReplyDelete@Jordy - I would be careful not to determine any significant relationship between Maoism and "combined and uneven development" especially as mediated by the Althusserians. Many of them were not Maoists, or even sympathetic to Maoism. Furthermore, Poulantzas is not normally considered part of the Althusserian camp, and was simply sympathetic as many were at the time to a structuralist Marxism (again something Althusser himself was very uneasy about). No serious Maoist theorist or organization has used the term to my knowledge as it would paper over the real differences between Trotsky and Mao on this question. Some of the main differences can be seen as to how this integration occurs.
ReplyDeleteEllen Woods Democracy Against Capitalism has plenty of revolutionary theory, but its a school of historical sociology for the most part - not all Marxist writing needs to make clear revolutionary theory (was Mao an historian? Was Hobsbawm a revolutionary leader? Was Thompson a philologist?)..I can only assume that Stalin's writing being worth more, say, than polemical destructions of Alex Callinicos, studies of the development of the value form in Aristotle, Chinese agrarain developlment and other issues, is hyperbole ;)
ReplyDelete@JMP and John Francis - I have also been meaning to read Stalin's Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, and to follow it up with Mao's own notes on the book. It is considered one of the vital points at which Mao and Stalin depart (despite all of the Trotskyist nonsense that Maoism is simply a variety of Stalinism).
ReplyDeleteJordy, I never said all Marxist theory has to be explicitly about revolution, but I just find Political Marxism utterly devoid of anything that has to do with revolutionary praxis: and I say this as someone who appreciates academic marxism but also as someone with long involvement in activism. This does not mean that it is worthless, but that I find it uninteresting and in some ways qualifying for what Lenin trashed as marxism devoid of revolutionary content. And I can name at least one member of that school who, even when it comes to trade union struggles, has generally been on the side of capital.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes Mao did do historical work, as did Lenin. These days I find so much marxist philosophizing boring and utterly disconnected from struggle: I still study it, but I'm ultimately disinterested in these hair-splitting debates.
My interest in Stalin's writing, even if it's problematic, is because it emerges from the end of an actually existing socialism of which, like it or not, Stalin was in charge. This is far more interesting and useful than a group of marxists who are not connected to any significant struggle, were never involved in building socialism, etc.
Oh, and WD and John Francis, is this the text of Stalin's that Mao critiqued? I think I remember reading the critiques but not the original text...
ReplyDeleteLOL, I just realized that my reply to your question, accompanied by a big essay on Economic Problems I wrote in this box didn't get through because I forgot the captcha... sigh.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I hate it when comments get lost. I've done this many times.
ReplyDeleteI think you gloss over the differences between Stalin and Trotsky's approaches to the kulaks and collectivization. Throughout the 1920s the Left Opposition led by Trotsky argued that the growing power of the kulaks thanks to the NEP represented a danger to the revolution, and argued for a policy of gradual, voluntary collectivization. Stalin, on the other hand, stood on the right side of the debate and shrugged off Trotsky's concerns - until at the end of the decade the threat posed by the kulaks suddenly became clear to him, whereupon he panicked and embarked on the insane policy of forced and rapid collectivization at gunpoint.
ReplyDeleteAs Lenin suggested, ultra-leftism is the price the movement has to pay for ultra-leftism, and we saw that with Stalin's wild swings in policy at this time leading up to the so-called "third period".
Just a brief correction: according to Lenin, ultra-leftism is the price the movement has to pay for the primary sins of opportunism (I'm sure you just made a typo). This bears on the fact that most marxist/communist orgs these days at the centres of capitalism *are* opportunist organizations that advocate social democratic strategies (sometimes badly applying, out of historical context, LWCaID in an idealist manner to today's concrete conjuncture), thus leading to an over-generation of anarchist groups and strategy. Even worse, of course, is when opportunist organizations proclaim all revolutionary approaches "ultra-leftist", thus causing more and more honest militants to appreciate anarchist militancy and have nothing but scorn for the majority of communists who have become little more than social dems in practice––the gap between theory and practice, here, is very telling––which has always been an opportunist strategy. Bernstein and Kautsky, after all, called Luxemburg and Lenin and everyone else who walked away from the Second International "ultra-leftists"… but this is because opportunists see anyone who is to the left of them as "ultra-left".
DeleteAnd, to be precise, I don't think I gloss over the differences. In fact, my position is historically based and yours is a story told *after* Trotsky was kicked out of the Comintern. If you read Trotsky's own book on this matter, which I cited, you will see that his position is not some slow, gradual collectivization but, rather, argues for immediate and outright liquidation of the kulak class. It was Bukharin who argued for a gradual policy, and it was Bukharin's position that Stalin adopted during the period that witnessed the line struggle (which Trotsky lost and lost in a very open matter internationally) between Trotsky and Stalin. Later, Stalin would try to adopt Trotsky's, rather than Bukharin's, position in this matter, as I indicated in this peace. The evidence is what was written by Trotsky about this issue (Terrorism and Communism) from that period. So before making dogmatic claims about what you think Trotsky advocated based on Trotskyist claims about Trotsky, read what Trotsky actually wrote himself at the moment of these policy line struggles.
DeleteUgh, that was an embarrassing typo re: the Lenin quote.
Delete"Terrorism and Communism" was written in 1920, long before the period I'm talking about, and you're distorting Trotsky's position. He says the kulaks should eventually be liquidated as a class in that book, yes. But he doesn't say HOW this should be done, and at no point does he advocate rapid and forced collectivization at gunpoint.
There was no distortion. The *how* wasn't at issue at the time because it is always difficult to figure out the hows when you put forward a theory regarding a specific class. And I seriously doubt that Trotsky, had he been in power, would have balked at the necessities produced by the theoretical *whys* he concocted––if you're going to theorize that a certain class is a vulture class and needs to be done away with, then the actually existing policy that cohered under Stalin, which derived originally from Trotsky's understanding, actually does follow. Conversely, at no point did Stalin say that the liquidation of the kulak class needed to happen at gunpoint; the situation and a bad theoretical line produced what happened, regardless of intentions.
DeleteFurthermore, simply because Trotsky wrote this book in 1920 doesn't necessarily matter. *Results and Prospects* was written in 1906 and it is still treated as orthodox Trotskyism, republished in every "permanent revolution" collection. The reason I bring up this piece by Trotsky, to be clear, is not necessarily to point out how stupid Trotsky was, but to indicate that he actually understood the problem, though in a distorted way that was no less distorted as the understanding Stalin would eventually reach (and ahead of Stalin no less), that was blocking collectivization. Despite its flaws, I think that *Terrorism and Communism* is actually one of Trotsky's better and more revolutionary works. Rather than being denounced by Trotskyists, it should be treated as something that did have a connection with the concrete realities of the Russian Revolution––and this was because, at that time, Trotsky was still a part of a revolutionary movement. Afterwords, philosophically speaking, his theory became far more idealist.
"Bukharin's death was another sin for Trotskyists to lay at the feet of Stalin as if Trotsky himself would not have had Bukharin executed for the very same reasons. (Again, this is not to justify Bukharin's death: I think it was unjustifiable, but I also think that it is utterly hypocritical for Trotskyists, who had once railed against Bukharin when he was also behind Trotsky's expulsion, to cry about his execution."
ReplyDeleteJMP, why do assume, just because Trotsky disagreed with Bukharin he would have had him executed, his wife imprisoned, and his child placed in a foster home? Do you think that Trotsky would have carried out the purge of the Red Army officer corps, which in some cases, such as Marshal Tukhachevsky, included his wife, mother, and his son, still a child, who all died in prison?
Being critical of Stalin doesn't automatically make one a Trotskyist. In the US, the now defunct Marxist Leninist Party, had a perspective of NEITHER Trotsky or Stalin. They started out as a pro Albanian tendency,very supportive of Stalin. In the late 1980's they abandoned that perspective. Not a bad example for Maoism to follow.
Why do you assume Trotsky, who was pretty harsh in the execution of opponents during the war years, wouldn't have acted in the same way as Stalin. Either way we can't know, but the fact that Trotsky was pretty punitive when it came to things like the Kronstadt, and the measures he proposed in his writings at the time, seems to indicate that it is pretty likely he might have had a similar approach. And truly, could Trotsky have acted any differently than Stalin had he been in the same position and encountered, for the very first time, the contradictions of actually existing socialism?
DeleteNowhere here am I saying you cannot be critical of Stalin without being a Trotskyist. I am critical of both Trotsky and Stalin––the only difference is that I see the latter as someone who was leading the international proletarian movement at one point. Maoism generally is critical of Stalin and rejects that there is such a thing as Stalinism, but critical for the right reasons; it doesn't need to follow this example, it has enough examples of its own.
It is an interesting post, and a bit later I'll write some continuation of our discussion about socialism as a result of reading this and your pamphlet in defence of Maoism. Here I only want to make a point about your mistake. You write:
ReplyDelete"Bukharin remained politically consistent whereas Trotsky and Stalin did not"
You seem not to be aware of Bukharin's actual political and theoretical biography. In fact his positions were much more inconsistent than of Stalin and Trotsky. Immediately after the October revolution Bukharin was the most prominent speaker of "left-wing communist" opposition to Lenin that insisted on necessity of military export of revolution and opposed Brest peace treaty with Germany. He also opposed Lenin's idea of necessity of state-capitalist development as a precondition of transition to socialism and argued for immediate nationalization and worker's control, development of 'fabzavkoms' (factory-plant committees) as alternative to centralization of all power in hands of state. After politics of "military communism" began, Bukharin became its enthusiastic supporter as he considered the idea of suppression of commodity relations and rejection of concessions to capital, and he was even ready to forgive some bureaucratization of the state as he was fully satisfied with its politics. In 1921 he issued the book "Economy of transition period" where he opposed the idea of dictatorship of proletariat as a form of alliance with peasantry and insisted on the necessity of expropriation of peasantry. In fact together with Preobrazhensky (who would later become Bukharin's major theoretical opponent in his criticism on Trotskyist approach to peasantry) he invented the idea "socialist primitive accumulation". Bukharin radically changed his mind only after "new economic policy" (NEP) started, and only in 1925 he proclaimed the idea incorporation of kulaks in socialist construction (and soon he criticized this position and proclaimed a more moderate one, but also still opposed to collectivization and rapid industrialization). In fact, he argued something absolutely opposite to his position of 1918-1921.
Note the context: I meant Bukharin remained politically consistent in that very specific debate. I agree that he was inconsistent in many things around this debate.
Delete