Trotsky's Soviet Union confirmed

Scan page 11

'The Soviet Union emerged from the October Revolution as a workers' state. State ownership of the means of production, a necessary prerequisite to socialist development, opened up the possibility of rapid growth of the productive forces. But the apparatus of the workers' state underwent a complete degeneration at the same time: it was transformed from a weapon of the working class into a weapon of bureaucratic violence against the working class and more and more a weapon for the sabotage of the country's economy.

"The bureaucratization of a backward and isolated workers' state and the transformation of the bureaucracy into an all-powerful privileged caste constitute the most convincing refutation-not only theoretically but this time practically-of the theory of socialism in one country.

"The USSR thus embodies terrific contradictions. But it still remains a degenerated workers' state. Such is the social diagnosis. The political prognosis has an alternative character: either the bureaucracy, becoming ever more the organ of the world bourgeoisie in the workers' state, will overthrow the new forms of property and plunge the country back to capitalism; or the working class will crush the bureaucracy and open the way to socialism."—Opening paragraphs of the section, "The USSR and Problems of the Transitional Epoch," in the founding programmatic document, "The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International."

The above words were written by Leon Trotsky in 1938. Trotsky was a central leader of the 1917 Russian Revolution and founder of the Fourth International. He was exiled in the late 1920s and later assassinated by an agent of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin in 1940.

The historic events currently transforming the Soviet Union are a confirmation of Trotsky's analysis.

The disintegration of the Stalinist bureaucracies first in Eastern Europe, beginning in 1989, and today in the Soviet Union was predicted by Trotsky. This was not because Trotsky made a subjective guess but because of his use of the scientific method of Marxism. He based his analysis on the facts and the line of march of history.

The issue today is whether the counterrevolutionary bureaucracy will be able to overthrow the workers' state—the state property, planned economy, and monopoly of foreign trade and other historic conquests of October 1917—or whether the working class will first rise up and reestablish its political rule over the Soviet Union.

The roots of the economic catastrophe and political crisis in the Soviet Union were evident decades ago. The capitalist restorationist tendencies of the ruling bureaucratic caste (openly pushed by all wings of the bureaucracy today, including the Stalinists-turnednationalists in many of the republics) was also clear 60 years ago.

Trotsky discussed these and other questions concerning the degeneration of the first workers' state in several works, the most important being "The Revolution Betrayed," written in 1936. What follows here is a brief review of that book.

The October Revolution Trotsky begins his critical analysis by explaining why the Russian workers and peasants took the road of the proletarian revolution even though Tsarist Russia was the weakest link in the world capitalist chain.

"Russia took the road of proletarian revolution, not because her economy was the first to become ripe for a socialist change," Trotsky wrote (page 5), "but because she could not develop further on a capitalist basis. Socialization of the means of production had become a necessary condition for bringing the coun try out of barbarism. That is the law of combined development for backward countries."

The Russian Revolution, led by the Bolshevik (Communist) Party under V.I. Lenin, was very deepgoing. The old ruling class was crushed, its army destroyed, and workers' ("soviet") democracy established in which the majority now ran society. The 1917 revolution opened up the epoch of the worldwide struggle of the working class and its allies for socialism. It inspired millions.

Tsarist Russia, Trotsky explained, was a backward capiAND WHERE 15 IT GOING?

talist country.

Its class structure was marked by semifeudal relations. More than 80 percent of the country's population was engaged in agriculture.

The Russian Empire was also a "prison house of nations." Only 43 percent of the population were Russians. The other 57 percent consisted of oppressed peoples—Ukrainians, Poles, Tatars, Turks, and many more. These oppressed peoples were forcibly incorporated into the empire and subjected to economic, social, and cultural discrimination. Anti-Semitism was also rampant. The policy of the old rulers was divide and rule.

The Russian liberal capitalists, whose economic interests were fettered by the monarchy, refused to overthrow the feudal relations on the land question by implementing agrarian reform. This was because landlords and capitalists in many cases had merged. Landlords became capitalists and capitalists became landlords.

Therefore it fell to the workers and peasants led by the Bolshevik Party to organize a popular uprising against the Tsar. The masses were mobilized to carry out a democratic revolution, that is, the overthrow of the monarchy and the feudal landlord aristocracy.

But as Trotsky and Lenin explained, the bourgeois-democratic revolution could only be led by the working class in an alliance with the peasants. Once SOCIALIST ness. It opened the door for Russia to catch up with the most advanced capitalist countries to "solve those problems of technique and productivity which were long ago solved by capitalism in the advanced countries." (Page 6.)

The Bolsheviks understood that socialism could not be built on an economic foundation of scarcity. Lenin called the task one of "catching up with and outstripping" Europe and America. Thus the Bolsheviks looked to the extension of the world revolution as key for its survival. Aid from a successful socialist revolution in Germany was hoped for to keep the revolution alive. Otherwise, the 1917 revolution would be another experiment for the world's toilers, as the Paris Commune had been in the 19th century.

Not surprisingly, the Bolshevik leadership did everything in its power to extend the world revolution. The Bolsheviks were instrumental in the formation and leadership of the Communist International in 1919.

Counterrevolution But the extension of the world revolution was delayed, with defeats in Europe and Asia.

The isolation of the Russian revolution and its inherited backwardness, was also made worse by the civil war and imperialist intervention from 1918-21, which led to the deaths of many of the top cadres of the Bolshevik Party and the most conscious layers of the working class.

The destruction caused by the civil war increased poverty even further.

The scarcity of goods and the setbacks in the world revolution formed the material basis for the rise of a bureaucracy. This bureaucratic layer (social "caste") eventually usurped political power from the working class through force and vioThis counterrevolution reversed many of the social gains of the revoluwhile leaving nationalized property relations.

The political counterrevolution, headed by Joseph Stalin, was sweeping. It included suppressing the rights of oppressed nations, relegating women to second-class status, and gutting the soviets-which were the democratic instruments used by the working class to take power.

Stalin also broke the worker and peasant alliance that had been crucial for the victory of the October revolution. He devastated Soviet agriculture through his forced collectivization of the peasantry. Soviet farming still has not recovered from that adventurous policy.

Most significantly, by World War II, the ruling caste-through terror, murder, and concentration camps-had driven the workers and peasants from political life. The Communist Party was transformed from a revolutionary party into an apparatus of the privileged caste to rule over the working people in their name.

Socialism in one country?

After Lenin's death in 1924, Stalin, speaking for the caste, tried to justify the political counterrevolution with a new "theory" called building "socialism in one country." The idea was that the Soviet Union could build socialism without the rest of the world making a socialist revolution. The political content of this utopian notion was a policy of collaboration with imperialism at the expense of workers and peasants of the world.

Yet the Soviet Union was never socialist except in its perspective when led by the Bolsheviks under Lenin. What Trotsky said in 1936 remains true today:

"Russia was not the strongest, but the weakest link (continued on page on page 21)

ACTION OCTOBER 1991 11

Scan page 12

The following debate was broadcast on world. I think that it shifts the world KOED, a public radio station in San balance of forces. There is no counterFrancisco, on Aug. 28, 1991. It has weight now to U.S. imperialism. I'm been slightly edited for space and clarity. very saddened by the demise of the ComKevin Pursglove [moderator): The closing down of newspapers.

now the aftermath, are a terrible tragedy for the world. I think that it shifts the world balance of forces. There is no counter-weight now to U.S. 12 SOCIALISȚ ACTION OCTOBER 1991 been suignty eartea jor space ana clarity.

Kevin Pursglove [moderator]: The leaders of the major democratic nations of the world are offering support and praise for the Soviet people and their leaders in the aftermath of the failed plot to overthrow Mikhail Gorbachev. In fact, foreign support for the economic and political changes espoused by President Gorbachev has never been stronger.

The major reason for this backing is the belief on the part of many of these democratic leaders that the events of last week have brought an end to the largest symbol of communism and socialism in the world.

Joining me in the KQED radio studios this morning are three people long active in socialist and communist political activities in the Bay Area and the country. They're here to offer their observations on the impact of the Soviet events on socialist and communist parties in the United States. My guests are Kendra Alexander, Chairperson of the Communist Party of California; Irwin Silber, journalist and author and former Executive Editor of The Guardian newspaper. He is now the editor of Crossroads Magazine, a monthly publication of political analysis.

Jeff Mackler is the National Secretary of Socialist Action. He's long been active in the Bay Area's leftist movement. He's organized local protests against the Persian Gulf War and directed the Committee Against a Vietnam War in the Middle East. Good morning to all three of you. Thank you for being here on the program.

Let me begin with you, Jeff Mackler. Do the events in the Soviet Union over the past seven to 10 days have an impact on the idea that a socialist or communist party can survive in the Bay Area?

Jeff Mackler: The events are testimony to the fact that the working people of the Soviet Union are beginning the process of taking their destiny into their own hands. Of course, this is a fundamental aspect of socialist politics, the rule of the people themselves.

Pursglove: Even if they tend to be moving in what we would describe in this country as a more democratic form of government, you still think that there is hope there for socialism?

Mackler: Neither Gorbachev, Yeltsin, or the coup-makers have anything in common with socialism. They have all publicly stated their continuing support for the market economy, for capitalism.

The difference between the coup-makers and Gorbachev is that the coup-makers believe that you can impose capitalism at the point of a bayonet—perestroika with a bayonet, so to speak. They thought they had a good chance to succeed because Gorbachev's attempt to impose capitalism had led to a sharp decline in popularity. The polls indicate that less than seven percent supported his policies.

Pursglove: Irwin Silber, do you think there's going to be an overall impact on the ability of communist or socialist parties to organize followers, workers, and members of the party?

Irwin Silber: Clearly that has to be the case. The international communist movement is dead. I think that for all practical purposes, it was dead before the coup and its rebuff.

The crisis that's overtaken the Soviet Union and all of the countries where socialism presumably actually existed, has undermined the ideological foundations of an international communist movement. So if we just want to look specifically at the Communist Party framework, which after all is the most influential section of the socialist movement on a world-scale, I think it is in very big trouble.

Kendra Alexander: The events in the Soviet Union, the coup and now the aftermath, are a terrible tragedy for the very saddenea by ine aemise or ine communist Party in the Soviet Union, munist Party in the Soviet Union, closing down of newspapers.

I opposed the coup, because you can't L - 92 go back. What socialists, communists have to do is look for another way to bring equity and equality to the people's of the world. I still believe in socialism. I believe it's the only answer to the problems in our country. I'm very saddened that this kind of method was used in the Soviet Union and that it now precipitated a course of action that is basically going to be to the detriment of the Soviet people.

Pursglove: Now, I understand that there is always a debate among various members of the socialist or communist elements in the Bay Area that what we saw in the Soviet Union was never true communism or true socialism. But like It or not, inat s wnat most peopie use as a definition. So, if the Soviet Union is continuing to change, what models are there for people in the Bay Area to point to as examples of a communist or imperialism."

socialist form of government?

Alexander: I think one of the positives out of the perestroika and glasnost initiated by Gorbachev was the recognition that there are really no models for socialism and that one of the problems of the left and of communists was seeing that there was just one model or one form.

And I think that what is going to be required now for the left, communist, and socialists in the United States, is the understanding that socialism and our fight for socialism in this country must be based on the revolutionary and democratic traditions of this country. You can't impose some other model here.

Mackler: I disagree with the major assumptions of Irwin and Kendra on the question of international communism. With the coming to power of Stalin in the Soviet Union in the late 1920s, the international communist movement was destroyed. The leadership of the revolution, which gave the largest country in the world to the people in the form of a massive land reform and worker's soviets, was destroyed by Stalin.

Few people know what soviets are these days. The original soviets [the Russian word for councils] were democratic, controlled and organized by the working class and their allies and designed to run society.

The so-called international communist movement has been, in reality, a world Stalinist movement. It has been a conservative and reactionary movement that has been opposed to the ideas of socialism. The essence of socialist politics is democracy.

In San Francisco, Socialist Action is running Joni Jacobs for mayor. She explains to the voters of San Francisco what the view that we in the [real] international communist movement uphold. Jacobs says that socialism means working-class rule. It means that society should not be run in the interests of a tiny, privileged, wealthy capitalist elite, but in the interests of working people.

The new international movement formed to challenge Stalin's current is called the Fourth International.

Pursglove: But to some degree, you would agree with Kendra Alexander that if you' re going to implement the philosophical purity of the socialist or communist movement in this country, you've got to do it through the current political mechanisms. Is that correct?

Mackler: Not at all. We utilize the elections, as Joni has in her campaign for mayor, to educate about socialism. But the power of the socialist movement is generated from working people in action.

That's what you saw in the Soviet Union. The coup-makers were smashed, not by a Yeltsin, but by a massive mobilization of the Soviet people to defend their own interests against not only the Communist Party, but against those who would, American-style, lower their standard of living to allow capital to enter the country at a greater profit.

The most interesting thing about the -Kendra Alexander relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States is that the United States won't invest a dime in the Soviet Union, not to mention in it's own economy. The only condition [under which] it will invest in the USSR, is the smashing of the working class.

That's why President Bush said that for now, the U.S. was not supporting the coup. But the United States government was totally prepared to support the coup-makers if they were successful.

Silber: This discussion sort of puts in the front of my head what I think has been, and continues to be, unfortunately, one of the major problems of the left in the United States, particularly that left oriented towards socialism or communism. And that is, we have lived in a fantasy world.

I think pari of it is due to the fact that the left has been so marginal to politics in the United States that we can indulge ourselves in any kind of utopian scheme. We can think that politics means what we believe rather than what we are capable of doing or what the real possibilities are.

And so we cling to fantasies. Some of which are historical fantasies. Well, if only Stalin hadn't done this or if Trotsky had won out, then the world would be entirely different. Well, how can you argue with those kinds of statements? There's no way to prove them or disprove them.

I think part of why Gorbachev won the respect of many people on the left, myself included, was that almost for the first time since the time of the revolution in the Soviet Union, somebody in leadership was talking in realistic terms, was acknowledging, not just the shortcomings and the problems, but beginning to deal with historical reality in a way that you say, "Yeah of course that's true."

A lot of this talk about, "Well, so and so is going to lead the Soviet Union back to capitalism," and so on, is actually irrelevant. The crisis in the Soviet Union began long before Gorbachev came power. I don't care who comes to power in the Soviet Union. They will have to deal with that crisis. And that crisis stemmed fundamentally from the fact that the economic system, the administrative-command economy that was called socialism in the Soviet Union, failed.

Alexander: Well, I find this a difficult discussion, frankly. My personal opinion is that the Soviet Union, the people of the Soviet Union, are in serious, serious trouble. The economy is in serious trouble, their political forms are in serious trouble.

I do not believe that Yeltsin offers a way out, or a solution. I think that he is expressing a very disturbing Great Russian chauvinism towards the other peoples of the Soviet Union, that the Soviet Union is headed for a real deep problem.

I don't want to debate. What's the point of debating Trotsky, Mao, those questions, now? In my opinion, that's what's irrelevant. What's relevant is how to make the left in this country more relevant to the concerns and the needs of people in this country. And that's what we should concentrate our attention and thinking on.

Pursglove: Then would you agree with Mr. Silber that the left is some'orld As fi nter- cerned

Scan page 13

represe Com- Democ Democ ion, States, The chairperson of the Calif. CP, a former editor of The Guardian newspaper, and joined t joined t can't tal, ge tal, ge: nists neither the Nat'l Secretary of Socialist Action debate the meaning of the fall of Stalinism ly to tive of tive of parties communist movement in this country, conditions of people in the United party— you've got to do it through the current States. One could spend most of this our can political mechanisms. Is that correct? program detailing what they are, and I Mackler: Not at all. We utilize the think most of our listeners will know elections, as Joni has in her campaign what they are. But the existence of those socialis for mayor, to educate about socialism. problems does not automatically make ic, antiBut the power of the socialist movement the left relevant or significant in U.S. and sup is generated from working people in politics. That's our problem. We do not play any significant role in That's what you saw in the Soviet whatever movements are now develop- against ist alike Union. The coup-makers were smashed, ing, let alone have the capacity to effect not by a Yeltsin, but by a massive national politics. I wish we did, because mobilization of the Soviet people to the problems are very real. And we can- unhapp defend their own interests against not not continue to cite the shortcomings of The re: only the Communist Party, but against capitalism. That creates the space within need to those who would, American-style, lower which the left can operate. But, unfortu- the rela their standard of living to allow capital to enter the country at a greater profit.

The most interesting thing about the the Soviet Union, that wa Soviet Union, the coup and socialist, turned out to 1 re a terrible tragedy for the because it wasn't democra shifts the world balance of those things are true. The :ounter-weight now to U.S.

work. It never proved its capitalism. And th -Kendra Alexander relationship between the Soviet Union nately, we haven't been very good at it. I've sp and the United States is that the United Pursglove: Irwin Silber, why does to the ‹ States won't invest a dime in the Soviet the American population as a whole, at did to c Union, not to mention in it's own econ- least the voting public, not buy into or disastrr omy. The only condition [under which] support some of the leftist philosophies includer it will invest in the USSR, is the and policies that you've long worked at smashing of the working class. and written about and supported? attentir That's why President Bush said that Silber: It does respond to it. But democr for now, the U.S. was not supporting not in the form that has been put forward the coup. But the United States govern- traditionally by parties of the left. Look democı ment was totally prepared to support the at the kind of response that Jesse Jack- solve tr coup-makers if they were successful. son got. A lot of the issues that Jesse Silber: This discussion sort of puts Jackson spoke to, that he represents, are lums s] in the front of my head what I think has certainly at the left end of the political been, and continues to be, unfortunately, spectrum in the United States and there's cratic P one of the major problems of the left in "The coup-makers were smashed, not by a Yeltsin, clearly a mass social base for that kind the United States, particularly that left of expression. That's only one example. withdra oriented towards socialism or commu- but by a massive mobilization of the Soviet people So to the extent to which the left can nism. And that is, we have lived in a find a way to focus on the real problems ing. If ! fantasy world. to defend their own interests against not only the of injustice, of inequality, exploitation you car I think: pari of it is due to the fact that in the United States, we certainly have many p the left has been so marginal to politics Communist Party, but against those who would, an opportunity to be relevant. But we do Democı in the United States that we can indulge not have in the United States a set of ourselves in any kind of utopian scheme. American-style, lower their standard of living to conditions which makes our talk of are tryi We can think that politics means what socialism, of revolutionary transforma- country we believe rather than what we are capa- allow capital to enter the country at tion and so on, relevant to anybody. ble of doing or what the real To the extent that we are associated sectaria possibilities are. a greater profit." with that, especially in the last few rather j And so we cling to fantasies. Some of years given the problems in the socialist we agre which are historical fantasies. Well, if -Jeff Mackler countries of the world, I don't think problem only Stalin hadn't done this or if Trot- we're going to get over at all. sky had won out, then the world would was called socialism in the Soviet what irrelevant in terms of American Mackler: I'm not surprised that your the pers be entirely different. Well, how can you Union, failed. politics? other guests, Kendra and Irwin, now operater argue with those kinds of statements? Alexander: Well, I find this a diffi- Alexander: Oh, no. I don't think it believe that the debate over the historical ernmer There's no way to prove them or dis- cult discussion, frankly. My personal is irrelevant at all. I think there's a deep questions in the Soviet Union is irrele- incorrer prove them. opinion is that the Soviet Union, the sentiment for the need for some basic vant. I wish I could just pass it by, but issue fo I think part of why Gorbachev won the people of the Soviet Union, are in seri- change in this country ... homelessness, frankly, I've spent 30 years of my life as true soc respect of many people on the left, ous, serious trouble. The economy is in hunger, all of these questions of such a participant in this debate, and the simmyself included, was that almost for the serious trouble, their political forms are magnitude. ple question I've had to debate was of soci: first time since the time of the revolu- in serious trouble. Look at what's happening in Brook- whether or not the Stalinist, repressive, thousan tion in the Soviet Union, somebody in I do not believe that Yeltsin offers a lyn. Our people are turning on each murdering, totalitarian regime in the et troof leadership was talking in realistic terms, way out, or a solution. I think that he is other in this country. It's not just hap- Soviet Union was socialist. was acknowledging, not just the short- expressing a very disturbing Great Rus- pening over there in Yugoslavia. Because of that regime in the Soviet coal mi comings and the problems, but sian chauvinism towards the other African-Americans and Jewish people are Union and Eastern Europe, the name of nationa beginning to deal with historical reality peoples of the Soviet Union, that the fighting each other because conditions socialism has been smeared in front of mobiliz in a way that you say, "Yeah of course Soviet Union is headed for a real deep have gotten to such a point of rage and the working class of the world. Socialthat's true." problem. disruption. ism became associated with the Stalinist A lot of this talk about, "Well, so and I don't want to debate. What's the These are the questions that the left oppression of national minorities. That's like. A so is going to lead the Soviet Union point of debating Trotsky, Mao, those must concentrate its attention on. I don't why they're seceding from the USSR only fi back to capitalism," and so on, is actual- questions, now? In my opinion, that's want to debate these other questions. I today. Only the Trotskyist movement, ly irrelevant. The crisis in the Soviet what's irrelevant. What's relevant is how don't really think they are relevant. But parties like Socialist Action, supported return 1 Union began long before Gorbachev to make the left in this country more rel- the question of what happens to our peo- the rights of the oppressed nationalities. capitali: came power. I don't care who comes to evant to the concerns and the needs of ple here and how we can help to Democracy in the Soviet Union was power in the Soviet Union. They will people in this country. And that's what mobilize people for change in the United smashed by Stalin. And the previous and his have to deal with that crisis. And that we should concentrate our attention and States is relevant. speakers said nothing about it for most, crisis stemmed fundamentally from the thinking on. Silber: Kendra, I agree with you if not their entire, adult lives in politics. doesn'1 fact that the economic system, the Pursglove: Then would you the problems in the United States There was no democracy in the USSR. requires administrative-command economy that with Mr. Silber that the left is very real. Nobody wants to glorify That was not socialism. phies ar can't nists ly to ple's lism. , the sadused preIt is nt of that action. rious unist twe true like se as in is › are voint tor posiinost agnis for lems ¡eing one o be nist, s the . Our must emoYou rajor a the ism. in in , the was volury in of a sovi; are [the emoy the and unist vorld con: that ›cialcs is on is She cisco nterhold. vorkciety of a elite, le. nent nt is , you : that hiloit or As fi cerned States, neither Troops That ple of Alex I thii and to So, Ji Gulf W Mac Alex ties, in What Purs Macl against Tests.

That' return Silbı simple, that agree are some- the

Scan page 14

in the Soviet Union? mer editor of The Guardian newspaper, and debate the meaning of the fall of Stalinism "The one huge experiment which started in the Soviet Union, that was believed to be socialist, turned out to fail. Not simply because it wasn't democratic and so on, all those things are true. The point is it didn't work. It never proved itself superior to SOCIALIST ACTION OCTOBER 1991 13 -Jeff Mackler what irrelevant in terms of American politics?

Alexander: Oh, no. I don't think it is irrelevant at all. I think there's a deep sentiment for the need for some basic change in this country ... homelessness, hunger, all of these questions of such magnitude.

Look at what's happening in Brooklyn. Our people are turning on each other in this country. It's not just happening over there in Yugoslavia. African-Americans and Jewish people are fighting each other because conditions have gotten to such a point of rage and disruption.

These are the questions that the left must concentrate its attention on. I don't want to debate these other questions. I don't really think they are relevant. But the question of what happens to our people here and how we can help to mobilize people for change in the United States is relevant.

Silber: Kendra, I agree with you that the problems in the United States are very real. Nobody wants to glorify the conditions of people in the United States. One could spend most of this program detailing what they are, and I think most of our listeners will know what they are. But the existence of those problems does not automatically make the left relevant or significant in U.S. politics. That's our problem.

We do not play any significant role in whatever movements are now developing, let alone have the capacity to effect national politics. I wish we did, because the problems are very real. And we cannot continue to cite the shortcomings of capitalism. That creates the space within which the left can operate. But, unfortunately, we haven't been very good at it.

Pursglove: Irwin Silber, why does the American population as a whole, at least the voting public, not buy into or support some of the leftist philosophies and policies that you've long worked at and written about and supported?

Silber: It does respond to it. But not in the form that has been put forward traditionally by parties of the left. Look at the kind of response that Jesse Jackson got. A lot of the issues that Jesse Jackson spoke to, that he represents, are certainly at the left end of the political spectrum in the United States and there's clearly a mass social base for that kind of expression. That's only one example.

So to the extent to which the left can find a way to focus on the real problems of injustice, of inequality, exploitation in the United States, we certainly have an opportunity to be relevant. But we do not have in the United States a set of conditions which makes our talk of socialism, of revolutionary transformation and so on, relevant to anybody.

To the extent that we are associated with that, especially in the last few years given the problems in the socialist countries of the world, I don't think we're going to get over at all.

Mackler: I'm not surprised that your other guests, Kendra and Irwin, now believe that the debate over the historical questions in the Soviet Union is irrelevant. I wish I could just pass it by, but frankly, I've spent 30 years of my life as a participant in this debate, and the simple question I've had to debate was whether or not the Stalinist, repressive, murdering, totalitarian regime in the Soviet Union was socialist.

Because of that regime in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the name of socialism has been smeared in front of the working class of the world. Socialism became associated with the Stalinist oppression of national minorities. That's why they're seceding from the USSR today. Only the Trotskyist movement, parties like Socialist Action, supported the rights of the oppressed nationalities.

Democracy in the Soviet Union was smashed by Stalin. And the previous speakers said nothing about it for most, if not their entire, adult lives in politics. There was no democracy in the USSR. That was not socialism.

As far as the United States is concerned, Jesse Jackson is a leading representative of a capitalist party, the Democratic Party. When the United States, the Democrats and Republicans, joined to murder 250,000 Iraqis in a brutal, genocidal, Hiroshima-type war, neither Jackson nor any other representative of the Democratic or Republican parties said anything. Whereas, my party—a socialist party and Joni Jacobs, our candidate-campaigned to "Bring our Troops Home Now."

That in my opinion, is what a real socialist movement is about-democratic, anti-capitalist, non-sexist, anti-racist, and supporting the struggles of the people of every nation when they rise against oppression, Stalinist and capitalist alike.

Alexander: It seems that Jeff is unhappy with everybody. That's O.K. The reality of the situation is that we need to think through a lot more about the relationship of the left to democracy.

capitalism. And that failed."

-Irwin Silber I've spoken many times about coming to the conclusion about what Stalinism did to communist parties. T think it had a disastrous effect on des, my party included.

I think now is the time to turn our attention to how to more effectively democratize our political organizations and to more effectively fight for the democratic participation of people to solve their problems. I believe that.

So, Jeff is critical of everything. Dellums spoke very forcefully against the Gulf War. He's a member of the Democratic Party.

Mackler: He never demanded the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Alexander: Excuse me, I was speaking. If you want to take the whole time, you can do that. I think that there are many political forces out there, in the Democratic Party, in other socialist parties, in many different formations, that are trying to solve the problems of this country.

What we need to do is get over the sectarian ideas that keep us apart, and rather join together on those things that we agree can be done to try and solve the problems here.

Pursglove: Jeff, do you believe that the perception that the Soviet Union has operated under a "socialist" form of government of a communist state is incorrect and that this is an important issue for people to understand-what a true socialism would be about?

Mackler: Absolutely. The true face of socialism is seen when hundreds of thousands of people fraternize with Soviet troops and say, "You're on our side against the Stalinist bureaucracy," when coal miners strike, when the oppressed nationalities move ... wherever people mobilize to defend their own class interests.

That's what the face of socialism is like. And that, in my opinion, is the only future for the Soviet Union. A return to capitalism would mean, a return to the Third World variety, the capitalism of poverty.

Silber: I'm sort of envious of Jeff and his position because it makes life simple, it makes discussion easy, and it doesn't require too much thought. It requires simply going back to philosophies and theories which have very little new to them and which have never been verified in life.

I'm envious because it's thoroughly utopian. Anybody can paint the picture that this is what socialism is or would be if I had my way. We can always find fault with what existed.

I certainly have my criticisms of what existed, but unless we begin to come to terms with the way history has actually unfolded and stop engaging in the fantasy that if only it had happened this way then all of our problems would be solved, we're not going to work our way out of the bind that we're presently in.

Pursglove: If an individual is a committed socialist or a committed communist, if they would like to see governments handled in either of those manners, isn't it helpful to try to understand what's happened in the Soviet Union during this century?

And if you think that is not pure socialism, to try to learn from that mistake so you can apply it to some other situation if it ever presents itself-so you don't go back and make the same corts of mistakes if you think that socialism was never handled properly in the Soviet Silber: Absolutely. But what I reject is this notion of pure socialism. This is a platonic concept, as though socialism exists somewhere in some formula and only remains for us to discover it. Socialism, if and when it comes, and I think sooner or later it will, will have to be invented. There is no existing formula that tells us what it was.

The one huge experiment which started in the Soviet Union, that was believed to be socialist, turned out to fail. Not simply because it wasn't democratic and so on, all those things are true. The point is it didn't work. It never proved itself superior to capitalism. And that failed.

The mistake in my opinion, if you don't mind my putting it this way, was not so much in the model or in the failure to find pure socialism, but in the historical abruptness of the project. What was wrong with Stalin's conception was the idea of a historical rupture in which for the first time in history one social system would be supplanted by another in the course of 15 years. Impossible.

This was a totally voluntarist, utopian notion, which had to be backed up by tyranny and terror because it couldn't work in real life. And that notion of the historical rupture in which one day a country or a people are living under capitalism and next day under socialism, that was the fundamental error, in my opinion, that took place in the Soviet Union.

Lenin himself began to get a glimpse of the problem in his last years, which is why he initiated what became known as the New Economic Policy-which was basically a mixed economy as a form of transition from capitalism to socialism.

Pursglove: Is the definition that you have of an active Communist Party in this country compatible with capitalism?

Alexander: I don't know what you mean by compatible. We are for changing the capitalist system into socialism... [TAPE CHANGE] There is an anti-communist development in the Soviet Union now-the closing down of newspapers, the closing down of [Communist Party] offices. You can't have a pluralistic society that does not democratically allow for many voices.

In the United States, our party has gone through the experience of McCarthyism, where Communists were hounded out of their jobs. But then it reached beyond Communists. Anyone who espoused social change became suspect.

And that process is happening now in the Soviet Union. So you have to be consistent on democracy. That's been one of our weaknesses. I don't think we were consistent on democracy. You have to oppose the coup as an undemocratic action, but you also have to oppose the excesses of hounding Communists, going after Communists in the Soviet Union.

(continued on next page)

Scan page 15

"I think one of the problems we've had in the realm of theory has been the deification and reification of Marxism."-Silber "I'm saddened by the recent developments.

I'm determined to figure out a better way for "Essentially, I believe that socialism is not only viable, but necessary for the United 14 SOCIALIST ACTION OCTOBER 1991 ... Soviet debate (continued from previous page)

It's not democracy.

Mackler: I agree with bans on the Communist Party...

Alexander: I'm sure you do, Jeff.

Mackler: The reason I generally do so is that in the Soviet Union there has been no real government since Stalin. Instead there has been the rule of a single party. I agree with the decrees that have taken the property that the Communist Party bureaucrats stole from the people and returned it. The police agencies were not the agencies of the people but of a repressive party apparatus.

I agree that the KGB should be banned. I agree that every Communist Party law restricting the rights of the people should be smashed. And when the Communist Party orders a military coup against the Soviet people, I don't put that in the category of one of their democratic rights.

I've spent a lifetime fighting for democratic rights in the United States, but socialism has nothing in common with one-party rule. It has to do with rule of the people through their own institutions.

Pursglove: Is it now necessary to engage in a re-evaluation of Marx's writings and the current status of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union in order to have a healthy Communist Party in this country?

Alexander: Absolutely. ... We have to look at all of the experiences of socialism. I don't want to sound as if I don't think that is a necessary process. Our party has certainly engaged in taking a long, hard look at what this all represents and what immediate impact it will have on our own policy....

Silber: I think one of the singular accomplishments, if I can use that word, of this period is the fact that Marxism, and its 20th-century version which is called Marxism-Leninism, is being demystified. I think one of the problems we've had in the realm of theory has been the deification and reification of Marxism.

There is a lot in what Marx wrote, Engels, Lenin, and other Marxist thinkers, that remains eminently useful. But so long as we go on putting it in the framework of doctrine, of a sort of complete philosophy that has an answer ready in print more or less for every question that faces us, we remain in serious trouble.

Marxism-Leninism, which was hailed and looked at as Marxism in the 20th century, is dead. Its fundamental assumptions have been wiped out in the course of the last 10 years. And anybody who tries to cling to those fundamental assumptions is bound to come up with a set of politics that is going to be at odds with the real world.

We have to go back and examine what it was that Lenin said that was topical to his time and what he said that might be of some use to us today. But the more important thing is to rid ourselves of the absolutist notion that a reference to Marx, Engels, Lenin, or the isms attached to their names is going to find our guiding philosophy.

Mackler: Essentially, what Irwin is saying is that Marxism-Leninism is irrelevant as anyone has ever interpreted it, and that he has a new interpretation we have to discuss.

That brings us back to the same question we've been debating for the past hour. The essence of Marxism, the essence of socialism and communism, is rule by the majority of the people. For the first time in the planet's history the mass of people through their own institutions will rule democratically in their own class interests.

Socialism represents a historic rupture with the notion that a tiny, elite capitalist group should rule. That's the vision of Marxism, of socialism. The agency for socialist change is the majority of the people.

When Irwin says that Stalinism, which he considers the same as socialism, is a mistake and he doesn't want to talk about past ideology ... that the mistake in the USSR was to go from a backward capitalist country to socialism, he is mistaken.

Stalin's "mistake" was that he tried to limit the struggle for socialism to one country. His doctrine was in fact known as "socialism in one country," which essentially meant no socialism anywhere in the world. Stalinism meant an alliance with world capitalism in return tor capitalist support to the stalinist bureaucracy. That's the essence of it.

If you have one iota of a thought in your mind that anything about Stalinism, or the Soviet Union under Stalin was progressive, other than the remaining gains of the October Revolution-the abolition of private property, which the workers will still defend-you can't understand what's happening today and you're going to be demoralized, as I think our previous speakers are.

If you understand socialism as the rule of the people, then the events in Eastern Europe, the Berlin Wall, and in the Soviet Union are events to rejoice in.

[At this point, a caller asks about whether the recent events in the USSR were orchestrated by the CIA.] Alexander: The world balance of forces has shifted. There is no counterweight to U.S. imperialism. I believe that. I think Yeltsin is a disaster for the Soviet Union. I think it is going to move back to capitalism if the USSR stays together at all. So I think that the role of U.S. imperialism is clear and it represents a big danger to the world.

I'm very worried about what's going to happen to Cuba. I'm worried about what will happen to the liberation movements that are struggling to democratize their countries. So I think we're in for a tough period. I'm not depressed. I'm saddened by the recent developments. I'm determined to figure out a better way for us in this country.

Silber: It's probably comforting to view every event in the world as somehow reflecting the long arm of the CIA or the Pentagon or some combination thereof. I think this view attributes more intelligence to those agencies of the United States than is warranted. They don't have that good a track record. And it lets the rest of us off the hook...

I don't subscribe to Kendra's view about Yeltsin and the events in the Soviet Union. I think Yeltsin is a big question mark, frankly. But history chooses strange characters sometimes to work its will. That may sound kind of mystical but I think its been proven. And the fact of the matter is that at the particular moment, this guy came to the forefront in the right place and at the right time doing the right thing. More so than anybody else.

Pursglove: Do you believe that the republics are being led down the "primrose path" by American imperialism?

Mackler: In the mind of the Stalinists, anytime the people mobilize against the Communist Party, it is a CIA-inspired coup-as in Hungary, and in Czechoslovakia, and in every single uprising of the Eastern European people.

But today the CIA is not alleged by anyone to be involved. In fact, to the contrary, the CIA and the U.S. government are supporting Yeltsin and Gorbachev, for political reasons, for capitalist purposes, and not militarily.

The U.S. opposes the mobilization of the Soviet people. The Bush administration has not supported the right of independence and self-determination of the Baltic nations. They prefer the formula of the bureaucracy, which is pro-capitalist. They are opposed to the formula of the people, which is separation and independence.

As far as the nationalist question is concerned, this struggle has been going on since time immemorial. And today for the first time, you are seeing it come to fruition. Despite the positions of the nine Communist Parties in the non-Russian republics, the people are still pressing for secession. The people are demanding the right to self-determination. Gorbachev's union treaty is in a shambles...

I support these movements for self-determination just like I support the right of Black people to determine their future and any oppressed nationality to determine their future free from the oppressor nation.

Alexander: I want to thank Jeff for recognizing the right of Black people to self-determination. I think it is complicated. I think both things are operating.

I think there is a genuine desire on the part of the Soviet people to change the way things have been. They're in serious economic trouble. There's no question about that. And I think that the move for independence has some legitimacy.

I think the big failure was this notion that the national question had been solved in the Soviet Union. Clearly, it had not been solved. When you think something is solved, you don't deal with it any more. I think it's frankly going to be a disaster for the Soviet Union to break up into small republics. How are they going to be able to exist?

And a lot of these movements in the republics are very reactionary and in opposition to other peoples that live in those republics. How can you support this chauvinist line with the "great people." That's the problem that Black people have been fighting in this country. The question of racism and discrimination and isolation from the whole of society. I can't support that.

So I think that we have to draw on our experiences to take a look at what now are going to be the problems they are facing in the Soviet Union. Just to say, "Hip, hip hooray." Great! The people are exercising their rights, and to not recognize the impingement on other people's rights, I think for Marxists is inexcusable.

Silber: I don't think it's a sinister [CIA] plot either. I think ... the Bush administration has not quite figured out how to handle this because in terms of their conception of national interest, it could go either way. I think they are scrambling. To attribute to them some omniscience that knows exactly what will happen if we push this button or that, I think doesn't make any sense...

I agree very strongly with Kendra's point about being wary of every movement that proclaims itself for independence. The mayor of Leningrad made a very interesting point in the Soviet Parliament the other day. He noted that in a number of republics the movement for independence is being led by people in the old Communist Party structure. Because they feel they have local control and that's their way of maintaining control.

I suspect, for instance, that this is the case in Byelorussia, where the old Communist Party apparatus is still very strong. One cannot simply take an across-the-board, uncritical look at every move for independence and applaud it and say, "Oh yeah, this is the expression of democracy."

[A caller asks about whether socialists favor "violent revolution."] Mackler: The main perpetrator of violence on this planet today is U.S. imperialism. They are the ones that organized the contras against the Nicaraguans. They are the ones that support the dictatorship in El Salvador. They are the ones that are seeking to deny women their right to abortion, to control their own bodies. They are the ones who killed a quarter of a million people in a month or less in Iraq.

Revolution and violence are part of an [historic] process. I support, for example, the right of the people to rule and to organize to achieve this end.

This includes the American Revolution in 1776, the American Civil War, the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, and every other revolution where the efforts of the majority to rule were thwarted by a tiny minority which employed the state's repressive apparatus on their side. Socialism is majority rule, not minority violence.

Essentially, I believe that socialism is not only viable, but necessary for the United States. It will come when the majority of people, organized in their own parties and their own institutions, want it. If it is opposed by an isolated capitalist minority, which I expect it will be, I support the right of the people to defend themselves against the same imperialists who kill to preserve their rule in the rest of the world, and who, I expect, will try to do the same in this country.

Silber: I don't think that violent revolution is a cardinal principle of Marxism, whatever cardinal principles mean. I think it was an observation by Marx in the context of his time, that he couldn't imagine, and Lenin even more so, how social change could take place otherwise. But it was more like an observation of the facts on the ground as they were. I think we have to rethink this view that violence in the course of making revolution is inevitable....

Mass actions in the streets by masses of people have effected incredible changes with a minimum of violence. That's a new feature in the world. So I think we have to rethink that question.

Alexander: I tend to agree with Irwin on that. I think in this country that socialism will have to come because people want it. Therefore, it will be done probably through the structures of this country, in voting and mobilizing mass action and so forth. All of those things will be combined to the point where people see the need for an actual change. These are questions that we do have to rethink.

Hear

at 7:30 p.m PATRIOTIC HALL 1816 S. Figuerora Navy Rm., 4th Fl.

Los Angeles Call: (213) 660-2891

Scan page 16

bureaucracy out of all positions of con-

----- pull-quotes -----

the Nat'l Secretary of Socialist Action deba "The events in the Soviet Union, the coup and

"The coup-makers were smas but by a massive mobilization to defend their own interests Communist Party, but agains American-style, lower their s allow capital to enter ti a greater prc

e smashed, not by a Yeltsin, ization of the Soviet people terests against not only the against those who would, their standard of living to enter the country at ter profit."

us in this country."-Alexander States."-Mackler

Why the Soviet People Defeated the Attempted Coup

Gerry Foley Friday, Oct. 11