jools posted:

what do you propose the chinese should have done?

all jumped at the same time

now that would be a great leap forward!!

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

Shocking evidence reveals that 'The Proletarian' was not involved in being written by a single trot magazine during or after the War of Liberation.

I am not sure what you mean by 'The Proletarian'.

But it's not true that Trotskyist parties do not have worker-theorists. Duncan Hallas, for example, was a card-carrying working class comrade:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Hallas

http://www.marxists.org/archive/hallas/index.htm

There are plenty more examples, too.

But, if there is ever a revolution led by a Trotskyist party, and it doesn't have a significant/predominant working class base, then it will go the way of China and Cuba.

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

What use would Chinese people have for some five syllable latinism like 'proletarian?'

No more, nor no less, than they would for another latinism: 'computer'.

Whether they use/have use for this word does not affect the fact that there were proletarians in China in 1949, and there are hundreds of millions there now.

You can call this class 'Susan' for all I care; its name does not affect the economic/politcal point I made.

drwhat posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

But it's not true that Trotskyist parties do not have worker-theorists. Duncan Hallas, for example, was a card-carrying working class comrade:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Hallas

"With the upsurge in left-wing political activity in 1968 Hallas joined the International Socialists (IS) and rapidly became a member of the group's leadership and a full-time worker at its headquarters"

you can't work at a political group headquarters and call yourself working-class. he could never lead a true people's revolution with that kind of taint

I'm not sure what you mean by 'taint'. I knew Duncan, and he never lost his working class roots. Socialist Worker and Socialist Review (publications I am familiar with) regularly publishes articles written by postal workers, engineers, health workers, electricians, transport workers, etc., etc.

But, let us suppose you are right, that does not affect this comment of mine:

But, if there is ever a revolution led by a Trotskyist party, and it doesn't have a significant/predominant working class base, then it will go the way of China and Cuba.

tpaine posted:

drwhat posted:
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:
But it's not true that Trotskyist parties do not have worker-theorists. Duncan Hallas, for example, was a card-carrying working class comrade:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Hallas
"With the upsurge in left-wing political activity in 1968 Hallas joined the International Socialists (IS) and rapidly became a member of the group's leadership and a full-time worker at its headquarters"

you can't work at a political group headquarters and call yourself working-class. he could never lead a true people's revolution with that kind of taint

Thanks for once again revealing your prejudice, comrade.

you stop me every time i try to be a beer champion

jools posted:

what do you propose the chinese should have done?

There isn't much you can do if the forces of production are in a primitive state. You can't build socialism in the midst of scarcity.

Don't get me wrong; it was important for the Chinese revolution to have taken place -- it's just that it could never have been a socialist revolution without a revolution taking place in several advanced economies at the same time (to provide the productive capacity to eliminate scarcity). That is one of the reasons why the Russian revolution went backwards (as Lenin and Trotsky predicted).

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

jools posted:

and additionally, given your disbelief in this dialectical concept of "quantity becoming quality", at what point does this proletarian (or wholly proletarian-led) revolution become possible? is this merely a tendential matter, the historical "coin" being weighted more or less to a favourable outcome?

Fortunately, it is impossible to tell, otherwise the ruling class would be able to tell too, and prevent it.

The best guide comes from Lenin: revolutions happen when the ruling class can no longer keep on ruling in the same old way, and the working class won't let them. If the working class is prepared to pay the price for each crisis, a revolution can be avoided; otherwise not.

well i mean in a more general historical sense. is it only possible to tell whether a revolution was "doomed" to not being socialist according to trotskyist categories in retrospect?

jools posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

jools posted:

and additionally, given your disbelief in this dialectical concept of "quantity becoming quality", at what point does this proletarian (or wholly proletarian-led) revolution become possible? is this merely a tendential matter, the historical "coin" being weighted more or less to a favourable outcome?

Fortunately, it is impossible to tell, otherwise the ruling class would be able to tell too, and prevent it.

The best guide comes from Lenin: revolutions happen when the ruling class can no longer keep on ruling in the same old way, and the working class won't let them. If the working class is prepared to pay the price for each crisis, a revolution can be avoided; otherwise not.

well i mean in a more general historical sense. is it only possible to tell whether a revolution was "doomed" to not being socialist according to trotskyist categories in retrospect?

No, it is possible to say ahead of time whether or not it can bring about socialism based on ideas in Marx and Engels. Which is why Lenin and Trotsky said that if the German revolution failed, their revolution was doomed.

drwhat posted:

So there can never be socialism if there is scarcity? Scarcity is inescapable. Did Trotsky claim that socialism can never exist?

Well, no, he maintained that an advanced capitalist country, or rather several of them, could provide the productive capacity for a socialist society once the workers had seized power. The problem would be that unless the revolution spread, it would become isolated and would be forced backwards -- as happened in Russia.

So, productive capacity is a necessary condition for socialism, but it isn't sufficient.

I don't know why you think scarcity is inevitable. These days we have the productive capacity across the planet to cater for everyone's needs. That wasn't the case several generations ago.

Furthermore, in a socialist society waste (on advertising, marketing, arms production, policing, duplication, economic slumps, unemployment, under-employment, rentier capitalists, the 'idle rich', royal families, etc., etc.) will largely be eliminated freeing up resources even further. Moreover, productivity will sky-rocket in a socialist society (explanation supplied on request).

Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein (Nov. 15, 2012 16:03:19)

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

But, if there is ever a revolution led by a Trotskyist party, and it doesn't have a significant/predominant working class base, then it will go the way of China and Cuba.

The Draper article you quoted criticized emancipation of the working classes not achieved by the working class itself... does that mean a socialist nation like Cuba would be forever stained by some Original Sin from the method of its founding... can a minority vanguard-type faction not feasibly surrender power to the people... what would the working class emancipating itself look like that eliminates the Bolsheviks, Maoist PLA, etc... And, historically, if such a revolution has not been seen, do you still think it's a practical road to socialism... Pardon my ignorance, I simply don't read.

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

drwhat posted:

So there can never be socialism if there is scarcity? Scarcity is inescapable. Did Trotsky claim that socialism can never exist?

Well, no, he maintained that an advanced capitalist country, or rather several of them, could provide the productive capacity for a socialist society once the workers had seized power. The problem would be that unless the revolution spread, it would become isolated and would be forced backwards -- as happened in Russia.

So, productive capacity is a necessary condition for socialism, but it isn't sufficient.

I don't know why you think scarcity is inevitable. These days we have the productive capacity across the planet to cater for everyone's needs. That wasn't the case several generations ago.

Furthermore, in a socialist society waste (on advertising, marketing, arms production, policing, duplication, economic slumps, unemployment, under-employment, rentier capitalists, the 'idle rich', royal families, etc., etc.) will largely be eliminated freeing up resources even further. Moreover, productivity will sky-rocket in a socialist society (explanation supplied on request).

So basically you've seen star trek a few times and consider yourself an expert on socialism.

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Impper posted:

rosa can you read my books and let me know what you think. thank you

http://www.amazon.com/John-Christy/e/B006RBZ01A/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1

I'm really sorry, but I don't read fiction, and haven't done so for at least 20 years.

weak minded and pathetic, just as i thought

The development of fixed capital indicates in still another respect the degree of development of wealth generally, or of capital. The aim of production oriented directly towards use value, as well as of that directly oriented towards exchange value, is the product itself, destined for consumption. The part of production which is oriented towards the production of fixed capital does not produce direct objects of individual gratification, nor direct exchange values; at least not directly realizable exchange values. Hence, only when a certain degree of productivity has already been reached – so that a part of production time is sufficient for immediate production – can an increasingly large part be applied to the production of the means of production. This requires that society be able to wait; that a large part of the wealth already created can be withdrawn both from immediate consumption and from production for immediate consumption, in order to employ this part for labour which is not immediately productive (within the material production process itself). This requires a certain level of productivity and of relative overabundance, and, more specifically, a level directly related to the transformation of circulating capital into fixed capital.

now, this is a rather suggestive quote, no? marx doesn't circumscribe the terms of this "certain degree of productivity", but i think it's reasonable to assume it is largely socially determined. and so, if you have less developed forces of production, the scales of rationality and freedom will have to weigh heavily on the side of rationality. therefore preobrazhensky.

jools posted:

(Marx, preobrezhguy, etc)

right. it's easy enough to envision it as a continuum. productivity and socialism both increasing together in one direction, and in fact encourage each other. and at one extreme end you would have this unattainable post-scarcity scenario. would Trotskyites have us go from nothing directly to that point of infinity in one great collective heave of the working class?

it sounds like Marxist eschatology.

drwhat posted:

jools posted:

(Marx, preobrezhguy, etc)

right. it's easy enough to envision it as a continuum. productivity and socialism both increasing together in one direction, and in fact encourage each other. and at one extreme end you would have this unattainable post-scarcity scenario. would Trotskyites have us go from nothing directly to that point of infinity in one great collective heave of the working class?

it sounds like Marxist eschatology.

well, not quite. the point is more about society having to "wait" in order for productive forces to develop at any time - the development of which being necessary (tendentially at least) for the "free association of producers". as such it seems obvious that this development can happen in a much more humane (and possibly more efficient) manner if the waiting is determined by a dictatorship of the working class, instead of the competitive conflagration of the bourgeoisie.

jools posted:

and tbh i have no real problem with an eschatological view of marxism. after all jesus happened.